Biotech Strategy Blog

Commentary on Science, Innovation & New Products with a focus on Oncology, Hematology & Immunotherapy

Posts tagged ‘Takeda’

San Diego

In our latest ASH analysis, we’re going to focus on some key early stage oncology developments and their associated emerging strategic themes to watch out for.

After all, looking to see what’s coming behind you can be just as important as what’s in front of you.

In this latest review, we highlight and discuss 14 abstracts from a mix of pharma and biotech companies based across several continents, with various intriguing developments spanning preclinical to phase 2 involving a mix of targets and modalities…

To continue reading our latest highlights on oncology new product development including commentary and analysis BSB subscribers can log-in or you can click to access the content.

This content is restricted to subscribers

Which Thunderbirds are Go?

Whenever we see a novel emerging niche with a raft of early stage agents coming to the fore, I always remember the salutary lesson we learned from the rise and fall of the BET/Bromodomain landscape.

This particular development attracted a lot of companies – big and small – with various permutations (selective, dual, pan inhibitors) entering clinical pipelines.  It wasn’t to be though, for it all collapsed once it was realised they were toxic and numerous projects were suddenly abandoned left, right, and centre.

Of course, not all targeted agents go poof by the wayside in the same fashion – as the PD(L)1 checkpoint and CD19 CAR-T cell therapies will certainly attest!

In our latest landscape review we take a look at an emerging target with a dozen agents in competition, the majority of which are either in the clinic already or undergoing IND enabling studies.

The good news is they are not all based on the same modality, which only adds to the interestingness of the niche.

While it’s unlikely all of the current agents will successfully make it past the post, I have a strong intuition at least one of them will.  The question is, which one?

To learn more about these early stage oncology compounds, check out the links below…

To continue reading our latest highlights on oncology new product development including commentary and analysis BSB subscribers can log-in or you can click to access the content.

This content is restricted to subscribers

San Diego bound for AACR 2024!

In our fourth AACR 2024 preview we’ve going to highlight some emerging trends you should watch out for. We took a look across over 130 abstracts and in an unbiased fashion, delved into the weeds to see what would shake out.

The findings were interesting to say the least:

Some expected, some unexpected surprises, others puzzling, a few provocative ones made me stop and think more about their approach.

It’s all here, black and white…

To continue reading our latest highlights on oncology new product development including commentary and analysis BSB subscribers can log-in or you can click to access the content.

This content is restricted to subscribers

San Francisco – the 2020 JP Morgan Healthcare conference is now in full swing, and we’re continuing our coverage with another rolling blog that provides review and analysis of company presentations, deals, and plans for the coming year.

Some of the companies featured in yesterday’s commentary were: BMS, Incyte, Novartis, Deciphera, Allogene, Nektar, Seattle Genetics, Mirati, and Clovis.

While our focus on BSB is mainly writing about the science driving innovation and new product development, especially in oncology and immunology, it’s good to hear what companies are looking to accomplish in the coming year and then put that in context.

Cancer drug development, whether it be with targeted therapies or immuno-oncology remains a fast moving and continually evolving field, and one you have to keep your finger on the pulse of if you don’t want to be left behind.

To learn more from our oncology coverage and get a heads up on our latest commentary JPM annual meeting, subscribers can log-in or you can click to gain access to BSB Premium Content.

This content is restricted to subscribers

In today’s post, we discuss multiple myeloma and the proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib, carfilzomib and ixazomib), in particular. One of the ongoing debates concerns the toxicities and how the drugs in this class might differ. Whereas melphalan and the immunomodulatory drugs or IMiDs (lenalidomide, pomalidomide and thalidomide) have both been associated with secondary primary malignancies including AML and MDS, especially in combination, cardiotoxicity has been the main focus of debate for the proteasome inhibitors.

Is this a fair rap though?

We should remember that people with multiple myeloma typically tend to be around age 70. Think of Tom Brokaw, the famous newscaster, who was recently diagnosed with the condition aged 74 and is in the median age range, for example. In general, most people over 65 tend to have an increased incidence of cardiovascular disease and myeloma patients also tend to have a slightly higher risk due to disease factors, so there is a background effect that needs to be taken into account.

We should be mindful of the recent scare with cardiovascular events associated with ponatinib (Iclusig) in relapsed/refractory CML, which led to a temporary suspension from the US market and subsequent re-instation with a narrower license, appeared to unnerve both the FDA and investors alike.

At the American Society of Hematology (ASH) meeting in Decemeber, there were some interesting posters, presentations and debates on the proteasome inhibitors in myeloma that are worthy of further discussion. In addition, I sought some thought leader opinions and curated some of the interactions on this topic to add some colour commentary.

To learn more insights on this intriguing topic, subscribers can log-in or you can purchase access to BSB Premium Content. 

This content is restricted to subscribers

error: Content is protected !!