Something that stood out to me watching Dr Jay's N

Quote:

---

Something that stood out to me watching Dr Jay's NIH presentation was him saying that there has never been a leronlimab dose escalation study and that the 350, 525 and 700mg doses are essentially arbitrary (maybe an artifact of a delivery system?).

---

The monotherapy and combo therapy trials were basically also a dose escalation study. But the only marker checked in that was CCR5 occupation. Which is why I was very happy when Dr. Recknor checked other proteins in the NASH study.

Top dose of 700mg I'm sure was chosen because of tolerability of 350mg for each shot. A much higher dose would have meant a much stronger injection site reaction.

Quote:

---

This isn't an issue in HIV if enough leronlimab is delivered to block viral entry but the same doses were used in the MASH study as well. He also said that in covid trials both the 700mg dose and subQ delivery were problems because a RANTES marker, calcium flux, indicated that the dose and delivery method were never going to be sufficient based on data for this marker leronlimab had shown in the past.

---

The 700mg dose is sufficient because you can't get more than 100% CCR5 occupancy. IV would have been preferable because CCR5 would be occupied much quicker so a quicker response against the cytokine storm. With an IV you could also use a 700mg dose initially then a much lower continuous dose so there would be no drop off in receptor occupancy.

The 700mg dose achieving 100% receptor occupancy will have the maximum affect on downregulation of CA2+ (calcium). Just as with the other chemokines it will take a bit longer with a shot vs. an IV.