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
Not sure what the dose is for ABX-EGF is for pivotal colorectal trial. The protocol seems to call for treatment until disease progression or 16 weeks, with dose administered every other week. So the amount used should approximate the amount used in the Rowinsky trial for RCC, in which the maximum course of therapy for ABX-EGF was eight weeks (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.
Oh, yes . . . some time ago, Miljenko hinted at patent issues with EGFr mABs, my recollection is that he said ImClone may have a superior position. Might be time to review that?
Cheers, Tuck |
