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 : ADVENTRX Pharmaceuticals Inc (Anx)

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: ggamer who wrote (299)10/1/2007 3:49:05 PM
From: Keith FeralRead Replies (3) of 418
 
Sure, but there is no reason to dump Cofactor. The safety results of Cofactor were better in the phase 2 b than the phase 2 trial. The only problem is that Infusional 5FU is a terrible way to bind with Cofactor or Leucovorin. 5FU is pumped through the body for 24 hours and outlasts the supply of folate, so there is no way to shut down the TS pathway.

Bolus Cofactor and 5FU works much better because the high concentration of 5FU can be delivered to the cancer cells from the 5FU. Look at how low the response rates were for both Cofactor and Leucovorin. Bolus Cofactor response rates fell from 35% to 10.7%. That is a huge number!! Bottom line, infusional 5FU is not the gold standard for the delivery of 5FU and it's only used in third world countries like Serbia, Poland, and India where no one has the money or benefits to pay for bolus Leucovorin and combination therapy products like Avastin.

It is almost strange that this "failed" trial actually proves that Cofactor works better than Leucovorin. The elimination of side effects in the Leucovorin Arm is a complete mystery. How do they go from 87% anemia rates down to 7.4% in this study? I'm not sure the Leucovorin safety results have any credibility.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext