RLF-100/Aviptadil wasn't considered for Activ eith
Post# of 153832
(Total Views: 674)
Posted On: 10/14/2020 7:15:29 AM
RLF-100/Aviptadil wasn't considered for Activ either and it seems to be much more promising than lenzilumab like leronlimab so I wouldn't read anything into it.
Why was lenz chosen? I see Schlingel mentions the BP connection. There are only 3 mabs, 2 from BP and lenz.
It will be interesting to see the results of the trial that compares lenz to remdesivir.
In their eIND program lenz improved patient recovery by 6 days over rem, which was great, but in a conference call their CSO said that he expected "slippage" in that improvement in their randomized phase 3 trial. I was in HGEN then but sold because of that comment and a huge increase in authorized shares. Plus Dr Patterson has said that blocking GM-CSF should only be important in 30% of patients.
Why was lenz chosen? I see Schlingel mentions the BP connection. There are only 3 mabs, 2 from BP and lenz.
It will be interesting to see the results of the trial that compares lenz to remdesivir.
In their eIND program lenz improved patient recovery by 6 days over rem, which was great, but in a conference call their CSO said that he expected "slippage" in that improvement in their randomized phase 3 trial. I was in HGEN then but sold because of that comment and a huge increase in authorized shares. Plus Dr Patterson has said that blocking GM-CSF should only be important in 30% of patients.
(1)
(0)