New PV therapy rates front page in WSJ, but but…

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: 2591
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:13 pm

New PV therapy rates front page in WSJ, but but…

Post by biopearl123 »

biopearl123
Posts: 2591
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:13 pm

Re: New PV therapy rates front page in WSJ, but but…

Post by biopearl123 »

Remember this? I think two patients had PV and were part of an ET study about 10 years ago…

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1503479
biopearl123
Posts: 2591
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:13 pm

Re: New PV therapy rates front page in WSJ, but but…

Post by biopearl123 »

Here’s the but:

Better safety and efficacy with ropeginterferon alfa‑2b over anagrelide as second‑line treatment of essential thrombocythemia in the topline results of the randomized Phase 3 SURPASS‑ET trial

This is an upcoming EHA plenary 10 years!! After NEJM Boerlacher article that showed CR’s (89%) in ET. That study did not proceed largely thanks to your FDA despite Dr. T’s efforts to study MF further then. That’s about when the mysterious rupture between Dr. T’s loudly voiced endorsements (and subsequent indifference) and Geron occurred. The rest is pure speculation. Thought the ET stuff was interesting anyway. For your reading pleasure.
seedylemon
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:57 pm

Re: New PV therapy rates front page in WSJ, but but…

Post by seedylemon »

Didn't Dr Tefferi attempt to patent his method of treating patients, and that's why he and Geron parted ways?
seedylemon
biopearl123
Posts: 2591
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:13 pm

Re: New PV therapy rates front page in WSJ, but but…

Post by biopearl123 »

That of course was never confirmed but strongly suspected by us long termers.
Post Reply