New Tefferi paper

Forum rules
- Comments must be civil and on topic
- Back up claims with evidence/reasoning/sources (posting links is allowed)
- No commercials/harassment/spam
Post Reply
cheng_ho
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 11:27 pm

New Tefferi paper

Post by cheng_ho » Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:58 pm

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epd ... /ajh.26197

"Taken together, the aforementioned data suggested a broader disease-modifying activity for imetelestat in myeloid neoplasms, with or without RS, and possibly influenced by the presence or absence of specific mutations. Accordingly, imetelestat might be preferable to luspatercept if the goal of therapy were to prolong survival or effect suppression of the malignant clone. However, such a prospect requires validation in a controlled study, whose likelihood of success might depend on selection of study patients based on specific molecular markers.7,8,12 Such an approach might also identify those patients who are unlikely to respond to treatment, and thus spare them from being uneccesarily exposed to drug side effects. "

So, Tefferi thinks Geron blew the trial by not forming arms separated by genetic markers.

And he can't spell "unnecessarily", but then his first language is Amharic ;)

biopearl123
Posts: 1670
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:13 pm

Re: New Tefferi paper

Post by biopearl123 » Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:53 pm

‘’Accordingly, imetelestat might be preferable to luspatercept if the goal of therapy were to prolong survival or effect suppression of the malignant clone.”

If that’s not the goal of therapy, then what is?

huntingonthebluffs
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 12:00 am

Re: New Tefferi paper

Post by huntingonthebluffs » Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:39 pm

Thanks for sharing. Excellent and very interesting work again by Dr. Ayalew Terreri. Seems like it’s been a while since he’s shown up on our radar like this and clearly provided a significant level of support for Imetelstat. While I appreciate the contribution, It’s a stretch to say Geron blew anything with the current Phase 3 arm set up, but typical editorial from the contributor.

I don’t know what leeway or freedom the researchers have with breaking out the data from the trials, but would seem to me that Geron/JS/Rizo could expect, at least to some degree, to break the data down by genetic markers whether or not they were separated at the beginning by various arms assuming that analysis were appropriate at this time. But why complicate the analysis and setup with additional arms when most expect Imetelstat results in the current MDS Phase 3 study to come in with strong results and definitely beyond a shadow of a doubt better than any competition which will finally leading to approval.

Post Reply