Biotech / Medical | Incyte Pharmaceuticals (INCY)


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (2646)5/3/2011 12:44:08 PM
From: software salesperson2 Recommendations   of 2864
 
5/3/11 cc notes


1. Opening remarks ( by Rich Levy)


Rux NDA and MAA in June; NDA expected to receive 6 month review; currently preparing for expected advisory meeting; launch later this year


Best of ASCO presentation with cc follow-up in evening


Both Comfort abstracts to be presented in Europe


Rux MF - - initiated low platelet count trial


Rux advanced PV - - most US sites active; NVS enrolling


Other Rux P1 , P2 - - other leukemias, other hematological malignancies, solid tumors with COG and MD Anderson


Rux pancreatic and lymphoma - - both 2nd ½ 2011


RA - - LLY to complete enrollment by 2nd ½ 2011


Sheddase - - analysis of tissue samples mid-year to determine whether to proceed with P3


IDO - - P1 solid tumors; dose escalation complete by year-end; also, melanoma and ovarian likely for P2


CMET - - trying to find maximum tolerated dose


Another oncology IND coming


Cash 3/31/11 = 383 M



2. q & a - - all rux, unless noted


(i ) plans for commercial buildout? NVS role? 1st to market advantage? - - hiring regional managers and salespeople by 3rd q; working on global brand name; allows us to shape and define market for 2-3 years


(ii) what are physicians most focused on? - - spoke to > 1000; thrombocytopenia, shrink spleen by 10%, relief of symptoms, efficacy, manage side effects; anemia not a focus


(iii) comfort 1 patients remain on drug? - - vast majority; minimal dropout rate


(iv) technology used for sustained release(SR) version? Once a day? - - smoother profile; lower peak; need more than 1 trial to get to market; protect market base against future once a day competitor; greater compliance


(v ) ASCO and EHA presentations different? - - no


(vi) RA - - thoughts on PFE’s deaths? JAK1/2 vs pan JAK profiles? - - unsure; our JAK trials have older patients with CV diseases and we haven’t seen CV problems; RA patients at more risk for CV disease in general; encouraged by PFE’s efficacy and safety profile; we haven’t seen heart disease or respiratory failures; doesn’t know whether JAK1/2 vs pan JAK makes a difference


(vii) PV - - enrollment in Response study? - - working with US academic centers; NVS sites enrolling; running slightly behind year-end start goal


(viii) CMET milestone for what? - - no direct answer


(ix) rux pricing ? - - no direct answer


(x) NVS have expanded access in Europe? - - not sure; after they file, some countries will have


(xi) SR formulation show benefit for myelosuppression? - - no


(xii) NVS use US data to file? - - yes


(xiii) dosing for low platelet study? - - 5 mg BID not as effective as high dose; 10 mg BID almost as effective


(xiv) what will be the most successful dose for low platelet count patients? - - expect 10 mg BID


(xv) those patients who get thrombocytopenia, are they more sensitive to the drug or is it their starting point? - - starting point


(xvi) other data in addition to ASCO or EHA? - - no



3. impressions


solid call; highlights were: best at ASCO; no heart disease or respiratory failures seen


sales


Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (2646)5/3/2011 1:48:18 PM
From: sjemmeri   of 2864
 
Real damn close to a 10 year high.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: software salesperson who wrote (2647)5/3/2011 2:44:26 PM
From: tuck   of 2864
 
Transcript:

seekingalpha.com 


Some feel the better affect on anemia from the YMI drug is important. What does the board think? Management's position is physicians in this filed are "used to dealing with anemia." Meaning, I suppose, giving patients EPO if needed. AMGN's stock price is evidence that strategy has its own issues, but there's always transfusions . . .

Does being first to market by a year or so trump this issue?

TIA & Cheers, Tuck (whose Mom is still holding this pup; now the biggest position in her portfolio, w/ MNTA close 2nd)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: tuck who wrote (2649)5/3/2011 3:54:20 PM
From: former_pgs1 Recommendation   of 2864
 
pcrutch isn't taking my bait ;-)


But if we assume (despite the perils) that INCY will be on the market within 12 months, then what does YMI do? If YMI goes for an SPA, then I think it is reasonable for the FDA to make them deal with the reality that INCY's drug is on the market. At that point, I see two possibilities:

1) They run a trial in INCY failures.

2) They run a trial in the same setting as INCY and go head to head or noninferiority.


For scenario #1, all the talk of anemia won't matter any since they won't be able to make a comparison with a drug in an upstream setting.

For scenario #2, a noninferiority trial is not feasible (cost, etc...). Going head to head would be a massive risk because there will likely be an endpoint that depends on splenomegaly either directly or as a composite, and INCY's 42% is not easily surmounted.

So I think this is all posturing by YMI in order to drum up some excitement about their drug and its supposed difference from INCY. But they still don't have the hard numbers to back up their talk.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: tuck who wrote (2649)5/4/2011 2:15:00 PM
From: Biotech Jim   of 2864
 
<Some feel the better affect on anemia from the YMI drug is important. What does the board think? Management's position is physicians in this filed are "used to dealing with anemia." Meaning, I suppose, giving patients EPO if needed.>

My view FWIW is that it is very curious that different drug candidates in the class have different effects on rbcs. Is it a difference in activity of the respective compounds against Jak1 vs Jak2? The preclinical data that I have looked at do not support that contention. Further, ruxo is much more potent in vitro (and I believe) in vivo than CYT387, and we need much more data on CYT387 to understand its activity. Though anemia alleviation of CYT387 is useful, it is easy to give epo and of course the docs are used to this. So what is the reason for the apparent differential activity?

Since ruxo is 3 or so years ahead of CYT387, it should be entrenched in the market by then and will be difficult to displace.

<Does being first to market by a year or so trump this issue?>

Absolutely in the general sense. An equally important issue here will be dosing frequency, QD vs BID, despite what was stated in the INCY CC, though INCY does have a sustained release formulation in the works though not much detail on that has been provided.

I am continuing to bet on INCY, though YMI has been a good trader lately.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Biotech Jim who wrote (2651)5/4/2011 3:34:13 PM
From: former_pgs   of 2864
 
>So what is the reason for the apparent differential activity? <

As a bit of background, this company was the same one touting that their low affinity EGF-R mAb was advantageous because it did not produce rash.

Of course, the whole point of the rash was that it served as a meaningful indicator of physiological EGF-R inhibition... so, YMI's m.o. of offering lower affinity candidates that have a putative safety advantage lives on.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: former_pgs who wrote (2652)5/4/2011 4:14:17 PM
From: scaram(o)uche   of 2864
 
Yeah.... I heard the anemia chatter, and went to the YM website to look at pipe.

Found a low affinity MAb, and you can imagine how that impressed me. Then I found the world's 7,323,874th microtubule disruptor, making MAb looked pretty good.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (2653)5/4/2011 6:12:08 PM
From: former_pgs   of 2864
 
>Found a low affinity MAb, and you can imagine how that impressed me.<

It might be useful one day if we find that there is a therapeutic effect to binding albumin* ;-)



* for those who haven't spent unnecessarily extensive time in the lab, lower affinity antibodies will have an increased tendency to cross-react with other abundant proteins through simple mass action. Albumin is one of the most abundant in the serum.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Biotech Jim who wrote (2651)5/5/2011 2:47:06 PM
From: Biomaven   of 2864
 
So what is the reason for the apparent differential activity?

FWIW, CYT387 also hits CDK1 and something termed TBK1 (I have no idea what the latter is).

Just a reminder of their 2010 ASH abstract:

Efficacy: Thirty two of 36 subjects who completed at least 1 cycle were eligible for response assessment:

Anemia: Twenty two subjects were evaluable for anemia response (baseline Hgb <10 g/dL or red cell transfusion-dependent). Of these, 9 subjects (41%) achieved the threshold of response for “Clinical Improvement (CI)” per the International Working Group for MPN Research and Treatment (IWG-MRT) criteria, including 2 of 4 subjects who were previously treated with INCB018424. An additional 5 subjects experienced a >50% reduction in transfusion requirement, thus increasing the total anemia response rate to 63%.

Splenomegaly: Thirty of 32 evaluable subjects had splenomegaly at baseline: median 20 cm; range 10-32 cm. Twenty nine subjects (97%) had some degree of spleen size reduction (median 9 cm; range 2-18 cm): 11 (37%) patients have achieved a minimum 50% decrease in palpable spleen size, thus qualifying them for a CI, including 3 of 8 subjects (38%) who were previously treated with INCB018424..

Constitutional symptoms: The proportion of patients with the following symptoms at baseline, are: fatigue (97%), pruritus (22%), night sweats (38%), cough (13%), bone pain (28%), and fever (16%). At last follow up, improvement (complete resolution) in these symptoms was reported by 68% (16%), 86% (57%), 83% (75%), 75% (50%), 78% (44%), and 100% (100%), respectively.

Conclusions: CYT387 is first-in-class of the JAK inhibitors with a significant response rate in anemia in myelofibrosis patients. The drug also shows substantial activity in reducing spleen size and controlling constitutional symptoms. CYT387 is well tolerated, and treatment responses have been seen both at (300 mg/day) and below (150 mg/day) the MTD.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Biomaven who wrote (2655)5/11/2011 12:42:50 AM
From: software salesperson   of 2864
 
from 5/10 BofA presentation


rationale for rux pancreatic cancer trial:


1) animal models show heightened sensitivity to apoptosis from chemotherapeutics when JAK pathway is taken out at the same time

2) penetrate tumor

3) prevent severe cachexia development



it will be a P2b study that could be registrational

the endpoint will be overall survival

it will be for 2nd line

capecitabine + rux vs. capecitabine


sales

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.