Clarifications from Anna (Geron) regarding 4.7 and 9.4 arms

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
Fishermangents
Site Admin
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 3:39 pm

Clarifications from Anna (Geron) regarding 4.7 and 9.4 arms

Post by Fishermangents » Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:30 am

(received 19 September 1016, based on some questions I had sent to her before)

Thank you for your feedback, it is always appreciated.

I would like to clarify a couple of points.

Enrollment of new patients to the 9.4 mg/kg arm has been suspended, while the trial continues in order to obtain additional and more mature data that includes a longer follow-up of patients at 24 weeks, consistent with the co-primary efficacy endpoints.

Furthermore, enrollment of the 9.4 mg/kg arm is not completed by patients enrolled on the 4.7 mg/kg arm being given the opportunity to increase their dose to 9.4 mg/kg. And note that this will be at the discretion of the investigator at each site, pending an amendment to the clinical trial protocol. And, these two arms would likely be analyzed independently, as they have been treated differently.

We are indeed encouraged by the emerging trends in IMbark and IMerge, and we wait for the longer term follow-up data from both studies.

Do let me know if you have additional questions.

Kind regards,
Anna

Fishermangents
Site Admin
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Clarifications from Anna (Geron) regarding 4.7 and 9.4 arms

Post by Fishermangents » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Intersting: the to arms 'likely be analyzed independently'. So it is not 100% sure they will. She also says implicitely that the former 4.7 arm will stay part of the trial. That means that all original cohort of patients are staying on the trial.

biopearl
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:12 am

Re: Clarifications from Anna (Geron) regarding 4.7 and 9.4 arms

Post by biopearl » Thu Sep 22, 2016 4:02 pm

Thanks Fish, the word indeed is edifying. bp

robtmsstt1
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:18 pm

Re: Clarifications from Anna (Geron) regarding 4.7 and 9.4 arms

Post by robtmsstt1 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:07 pm

Ask Anna what "emerging trends" actually signify my interpretation of this statement says the patients are feeling better or there are signs the drug is working .

Fishermangents
Site Admin
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Clarifications from Anna (Geron) regarding 4.7 and 9.4 arms

Post by Fishermangents » Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:15 pm

Rob: that remains guessing, because they won't tell. They didn't tell it in the cc, not in the press release and not in the answers of the various questions. My guess is that we have to look into hematological responses (lower LDH, less inflammation, improved blood counts etc.). I don't think they will look at bone marrow after just 12 weeks, because that's quite invasive. The answer is probably hidden somewhere between the long list of secondary outcomes of the trials.

biopearl
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:12 am

Re: Clarifications from Anna (Geron) regarding 4.7 and 9.4 arms

Post by biopearl » Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:11 pm

Fish, it could be as simple as spleen and symptoms. Just not enough yet. bp

robtmsstt1
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 2:18 pm

Re: Clarifications from Anna (Geron) regarding 4.7 and 9.4 arms

Post by robtmsstt1 » Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:22 am

Thanks, fish looking forward to start of AML study.

Fishermangents
Site Admin
Posts: 529
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Clarifications from Anna (Geron) regarding 4.7 and 9.4 arms

Post by Fishermangents » Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:15 am

Bio: indeed, it could. But I believe it was said that the internal interim review was not looking at the primary end-points, after an analyst asked for the criteria.

biopearl
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:12 am

Re: Clarifications from Anna (Geron) regarding 4.7 and 9.4 arms

Post by biopearl » Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:19 pm

Thanks Fish, I missed that when I listened to the cc. bp

Post Reply