Bad news from Vertex

M

musclemania70

New member
Harriett has it correct. Vertex reps said that the 809 was becoming ineffective after the dosages were upped. After the 809 dosages were increased, they had a reaction with the 770 that was making it ineffective. Those are direct quotes from the reps.

That is why most likely the 809 will be scrapped. The 661 is NOT having the same reaction with increased dosages. It remains effective.

They ALSO said, we are doing everything we can to bring the 661 up to speed and "catch it up" to where the 809 is right now. Exact words.
 
M

musclemania70

New member
Harriett has it correct. Vertex reps said that the 809 was becoming ineffective after the dosages were upped. After the 809 dosages were increased, they had a reaction with the 770 that was making it ineffective. Those are direct quotes from the reps.

That is why most likely the 809 will be scrapped. The 661 is NOT having the same reaction with increased dosages. It remains effective.

They ALSO said, we are doing everything we can to bring the 661 up to speed and "catch it up" to where the 809 is right now. Exact words.
 
P

Printer

Active member
We all need to remember that we are end users of a product that is not on the market yet. We, or at least most of us, are not stockholders in Vertex. As such we are not entitled to propritery company information. Even as stockholders we would only receive information at the Annual Stockholders Meeting. Think about how secretative Apple is regarding a new product.

I want these products in my lifetime. That may or may not happen. Vertex, as any other manufacture, only makes money when they sell a product. Nobody wants these products on the market more than Vertex does.

Bill
 
P

Printer

Active member
We all need to remember that we are end users of a product that is not on the market yet. We, or at least most of us, are not stockholders in Vertex. As such we are not entitled to propritery company information. Even as stockholders we would only receive information at the Annual Stockholders Meeting. Think about how secretative Apple is regarding a new product.

I want these products in my lifetime. That may or may not happen. Vertex, as any other manufacture, only makes money when they sell a product. Nobody wants these products on the market more than Vertex does.

Bill
 
H

Havoc

New member
Anomie, It's my understanding that the 2 fold approach will be 661/770. 661 will fix the protein folding and 770 will keep the channel stuck in an open position. As was said, 809 is out.
 
H

Havoc

New member
Anomie, It's my understanding that the 2 fold approach will be 661/770. 661 will fix the protein folding and 770 will keep the channel stuck in an open position. As was said, 809 is out.
 
H

hmw

New member
Anomie was correct. At the conference last fall and at another more recently, it was discussed that two correctors may be needed in addition to Kalydeco (for a total of 3 medications.)
 
H

hmw

New member
Anomie was correct. At the conference last fall and at another more recently, it was discussed that two correctors may be needed in addition to Kalydeco (for a total of 3 medications.)
 
M

musclemania70

New member
in our 15 minute conversation, Vertex never mentioned a second corrector. Not saying there isn't one but they were VERY candid when I asked questions about 770/809 and telling me why it wasn't working out....

when we discussed the 661, they were VERY enthusiastic about it and I believe if there was another corrector that had to be added, they would have mentioned it.

Vertex was cautious about the results last fall as Harriett said earlier. It seems like the 661 is showing lots of promise, which is why they are trying to catch it up to where the 770/809 is right now.
Is there a second corrector? Maybe. Who am I? Nobody. They would not have told me because I am no one.
But they were very honest about other questions so why wouldn't an additional corrector have been mentioned???

I wish I had all my questions prepared ahead but I did not know they were going to be at the event.

Don't you love to speculate???.....Not really. It sucks.
 
M

musclemania70

New member
in our 15 minute conversation, Vertex never mentioned a second corrector. Not saying there isn't one but they were VERY candid when I asked questions about 770/809 and telling me why it wasn't working out....

when we discussed the 661, they were VERY enthusiastic about it and I believe if there was another corrector that had to be added, they would have mentioned it.

Vertex was cautious about the results last fall as Harriett said earlier. It seems like the 661 is showing lots of promise, which is why they are trying to catch it up to where the 770/809 is right now.
Is there a second corrector? Maybe. Who am I? Nobody. They would not have told me because I am no one.
But they were very honest about other questions so why wouldn't an additional corrector have been mentioned???

I wish I had all my questions prepared ahead but I did not know they were going to be at the event.

Don't you love to speculate???.....Not really. It sucks.
 
H

hmw

New member
I don't think there are any other correctors right now aside from 809 and 661, (now it would just be 661.) What I was referring to was information presented at the conference, indicating that more than one might be NEEDED.

Here is a good post, written by a woman who attended the conference and has good understanding of how the df508 mutation works: http://luckycfmom.blogspot.com/2012/02/genetic-origami.html She wrote this about a month ago- obviously still waiting on results, but the science and conference data still apply.
 
H

hmw

New member
I don't think there are any other correctors right now aside from 809 and 661, (now it would just be 661.) What I was referring to was information presented at the conference, indicating that more than one might be NEEDED.

Here is a good post, written by a woman who attended the conference and has good understanding of how the df508 mutation works: http://luckycfmom.blogspot.com/2012/02/genetic-origami.html She wrote this about a month ago- obviously still waiting on results, but the science and conference data still apply.
 
H

hmw

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>jmiller</b></i>

Does anyone recall when vx770 was originally projected to make it through trials?!? Seems like 2016 for 661 is a long time--- and that 770 went from phase 2 to approved much quicker...</end quote>
Your post made me curious so I looked it up. The first phase 2a results for 770 were released on March 27, 2008... Just a little shy of 4yrs before the drug was ultimately approved.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/cff-cff032708.php
 
H

hmw

New member
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>jmiller</b></i>

Does anyone recall when vx770 was originally projected to make it through trials?!? Seems like 2016 for 661 is a long time--- and that 770 went from phase 2 to approved much quicker...</end quote>
Your post made me curious so I looked it up. The first phase 2a results for 770 were released on March 27, 2008... Just a little shy of 4yrs before the drug was ultimately approved.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/cff-cff032708.php
 
A

Anomie

New member
How do they know that 661 won't react with 770 at higher doses. Since the 809 doses were just increased in the phase 2b trial, are they starting the 661 off at a higher dose than they did the 809?
 
A

Anomie

New member
How do they know that 661 won't react with 770 at higher doses. Since the 809 doses were just increased in the phase 2b trial, are they starting the 661 off at a higher dose than they did the 809?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top