SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Biotech / Medical : Abgenix, Inc. (ABGX)

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: tuck who wrote (351)8/1/2004 6:56:22 PM
From: tuck   of 590
 
I have been trying to get a handle on ABX-EGF's possible cost advantage versus Erbitux, since there has been a lot of sturm und drang about the cost issue of the latter drug. It would seem that ABX-EGF can be given at half the dose of Erbitux to achieve optimal effect. However, the patients, trials, and protocols are different, so that is rough. Erbitux in colorectal was dosed until disease progression (which varied considerably). The mean course of therapy was about ten weeks.

asco.org

The maximum course of therapy for ABX-EGF was eight weeks in its PII for RCC (per links in previous posts). Lots of caveats, but . . . roughly 1/3 as much ABX-EGF used versus Erbitux?

Don't know if there are any manufacturing advantages that would lower the cost that way. I believe the two companies will be producing their mABs with the pretty much the same techniques, so I wouldn't expect much savings on the manufacturing side.

Since the difference in the amount used for therapeutic effect -- apparently due to ABX-EGF's four fold higher affinity for the EGF receptor -- is quite significant, I would say that even with all the caveats in comparing the dosing regimens, the cost advantage is a clear one.

Haven't tried a price comparison with Tarceva yet.

Discussion welcomed.

Cheers, Tuck
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext