RE: Avidimab17 Mar 2024 09:13
I see Avidimab as a pre-clinical asset.
As we know it is currently involved in SCOPE. If we assume that iSCIB1+ takes over from SCIB1 and provides above the assumed 70% ORR and a durable response, we must accept that Avidimabs role is not stand alone in that instance. It will have become part of the package iSCIB1+, which imo would be successfully demonstrated as THE stand alone asset. So Avidimab plus something else makes a stand alone asset = Avidimab makes a hybrid but is not the actual asset.
So my question is, despite having a significant role in say a SEAGEN or Scancell trial, why on earth would either company water down the subject of there own successful clinical asset (SEA-CD40 or iSCIB1+) by saying that it was due in part to Avidimab? Remember the objective of the trial being to prove the stand alone asset, not the delivery method etc etc.It is wholly more likely in my view that both SEAGEN and Scancell would be encouraged but still be unable to prove the exact role Avidimab plays without a robust trial of its own.
Finally, it may well become important for the regulatory bodies to understand the role Avidimab plays... This is because if it is not clearly defined, it could be used to boost poor drug candidates results. If for instance FDA were able to understand definitively what it does, then it would make distinguishing trial results clearer.
Conclusion: Avidimab needs its own trials. It could prove itself to be a successful mab in its own right; a successful asset in its own right. Maybe more likely in combination? This would mean it could be worth billions. But until then, the only way forward is if there are brave maverick entrepreneurial types willing to take it on. Or the more sensible types that will give it a six month assessment and maybe a milestone deal?
Anyway, these are not my definitive thoughts, just spit balling so feel free to tell me I am wrong!
Sign In
Follow the stocks
