AVEO Pharmaceuticals | Stock Discussion Forums

STOCKTALK

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
AVEO Pharmaceuticals

An SI Board Since April 2012

Posts	SubjectMarks	Bans	Symbol
8	13	0	AVEO

Emcee: Miljenko Zuanic	Type: Moderated

Introduction Market Data Compact

To continue from BV tread:
Member 863789
Quote:
>>Non-toxicity is company “illusion”

Well the side-effect profile in monotherapy was substantially better than any of the other small-molecule VEGF drugs.

>>indicate serious problems with PK/PD

If I recall correctly, their initial dosing in their Phase I proved much too high, indicating they did get some sort of surprise concerning their PK/PD modeling. But once they dropped the dose the drug seems to work well.

Peter

Well, I am not sure about “better” safety profile versus other specific (not Sutent) VEGF inhibitors. There is no direct comparison, so TIVO-1 will give idea about safety profile relative to Nexavar, as well as general safety profile. Latest (also safety PI) JofCO article on PII suggest that there is some problematic off-target side effects (liver).

Regards the PK/PD profile and data, I am afraid that even 1.5 mg dose is too high (at the borderline MTD). At the sign of the any toxicity FDA may ask them to consider (further explore) 1.0 mg dose. 2.0 and 1.5 mg was (actually) ~1/3 of NOAEL in monkey, so liver recirculation was unexpected. This may not be a problem, but great variability between subjects and absorbtion/clearing rate due to subject condition may be a big problem for oncologist (dose titration is not very applicable for cancer condition).

Regards the TIVO-1 and Nexavar better than expected PFS (9 versus 6 months), it is intriguing that at the same time Tivozanib PFS decline from ~15 to 13 months. Why? “Selective” selection of the subjects?

Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):

Reply	Message Preview	From	Recs	Posted
8	Can we revive this board? Can we revive this Stock?	Crueldog	-	2/5/2019
7	Gulp! There's a great piece by Sally Church..... pharmastrategyblog.com a	scaram(o)uche	-	2/27/2013
6	Aveo Pharmaceuticals' NDA for tivozanib to be reviewed by FDA on May 2 AVEO	tnsaf	-	2/27/2013
5	finance.yahoo.com Maybe not a big issue, but.....pounding the table…. Ficlatu	Miljenko Zuanic	-	5/2/2012
4	AD, cardiotoxicity is documented for ALL targeted drug for RCC.	Miljenko Zuanic	-	4/18/2012
3	Peter, “all we know about the Phase III was that safety was consistent with the	Miljenko Zuanic	-	4/18/2012
2	hey guys thanks for starting a board, just read this article may explain why a	ariadough	-	4/18/2012
1	>> Well, I am not sure about “better” safety profile versus other specific	Biomaven	-	4/18/2012

Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):