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 : biotech firesales
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: tuck who wrote (3595)10/23/2018 1:38:22 PM
From: Miljenko Zuanic1 Recommendation

Recommended By
DewDiligence_on_SI

  Read Replies (2) of 3661
 
Per MofA, it does not looks that RO6875281 will be combined with PD1(L1) as synergy combo regime, so general thesis of direct competition is not valid, IMO.

Second, as I mentioned early at SI, it is all about SYNERGY, and can 214 help enhance/extend PD1 benefit? We are entering period when is obvious that anti-PD1 therapy should go pass 2Y active treatment, so safe and complementary IO candidate that can add to this general view (without been too much expensive...which 214 should not be???!!!) will be winner, long term.

I can not say that 214 is sure thing, but that it is complete failure and worth ZERO, is even more exaggerated statement from SHORT.

One sure thing about second IO is Yervoy. But one need to develop more safe (even more potent) anti-CTLA4 drug.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News