Thoughts re the post EHA reprise

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
biopearl123
Posts: 210
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:13 pm

Thoughts re the post EHA reprise

Post by biopearl123 » Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:19 pm

Fellow board members, first off happy fourth of July. I never lose sight of the tremendous opportunities and safety this blessed country has provided me and my family. I am grateful to those who made it happen and keep us safe and strong. I have listened again to the recent Geron presentation and I urge others to do the same. After getting over my irritation (moderate rage?) about the amateurish quality of the technical presentation (largely fixed technically soon after,)and the failure to look professional to those who might be interested in this company, I came away with a few thoughts. One is we heard from academics not salesmen and for that we should be grateful. Enthusiasm for the drug was measured (in some minds, perhaps absent). So let the data speak for itself. There were carefully chosen words that conveyed that no other drug approaching PIII can prolong life (in MF) or lead to TI of the magnitude seen in MDS. 8 week TI in MDS is a "signal" but TIs of over a year is more than a signal, it is a measure of unprecedented drug effect and potential alteration in disease natural history. This should not be that hard to internalize. The idea of altering the natural history in a set of diseases the in a large subset (even "lower risk") of patients that may eventually develop AML was implied. The current protocol for PIII looks at potential progression to AML and that information has yet to be shared with us. Did any of the patients with CRs and marrow CRs develop AML? Will they? Or in responders can the natural history of the disease really be altered. Does a reduction of 2 to 4 units of transfusion translated to QOL improvement? It sounds like the answer is yes. In addition to fewer visits to the oncology/transfusion clinic we know that less iron burden translates to a better prognosis. Add up the number of transfusions saved and calculate the iron that never enters the body. EVERY PATIENT (except one) had some reduction in transfusion requirement, even if they did not reach the full four unit requirement. The bar is high but "non responders" responded too, just not enough to blow the FDA out of the water, or maybe they will see that slide and think about it too. If the bar was set for 2 or three TRs a lot more patients would have been counted in. I have developed a lot of respect for the Geron team. They are not hyping the drug. That is a good thing not a bad one. The data does speak for itself. Just listen. bp

Post Reply