RE: 100x more Dox in Tumor vs Plasma1 Jul 2024 12:23
Thorn, thanks, just looked at the slide.
Looking at plain doxorubicin, there are mixed results comparing bolus dosing with continuous infusions. Sarcoma and ALL in children did worse with continuous infusions. So it isn’t as straightforward as it seems re dose and effect.
AVA6000 is both a new drug and proof of concept of a novel delivery system. Choosing doxorubicin is inspired because so much is already known about this warhead.
The t1/2 of AVA6000 is an interesting point. The fact that it is so safe means its peak equivalence concentration of free doxorubicin can be much much higher than plain doxorubicin at present. Q2W dosing again is showing a significantly improved safety profile. Does the move from Q3W to Q2W mean Q3W didn’t work? I don’t know. I’m more inclined to believe Q2W is the sweet spot of delivery interval, effect, and side effect. This mix making it much better than Q3W. And ICE has an important (very important) point. AVA6000 can be given more than 6 times. Tumour suppression vs outright complete destruction. People die with a cancer, not of a cancer.
The other platforms and t1/2 modulation I take to be of use with newer, much more toxic, warheads. Agree these will take much more money and time. But. Once Q2W is completed, assuming excellent results, BP will take Avacta more seriously and the IP they hold. I can’t see Avacta going it alone with its newer agents.