Insights from current 661 or 809 trials

hmw

New member
Was there an actual press release or are you referring to the latest 'Connections' newsletter? The combo trials are referred to there but it's not really any 'breaking news'.
It wouldn't make any sense to axe what is being completed now (the 2b trial.) They are so close to being done and it's this info that determines what comes next. When everyone says 809 is being axed, they don't mean now as in the 2b, they mean for phase 3. We need official word to confirm or deny that... but it would make sense that anyone still in the combo trial would be finishing it out.
 

hmw

New member
Was there an actual press release or are you referring to the latest 'Connections' newsletter? The combo trials are referred to there but it's not really any 'breaking news'.
It wouldn't make any sense to axe what is being completed now (the 2b trial.) They are so close to being done and it's this info that determines what comes next. When everyone says 809 is being axed, they don't mean now as in the 2b, they mean for phase 3. We need official word to confirm or deny that... but it would make sense that anyone still in the combo trial would be finishing it out.
 

hmw

New member
I just realized there are posts cut off on this thread that for some reason I cannot see- hopefully if someone did link a press release I'll be able to view it the next time I log on!
The latest Connections newsletter can be accessed from the home page on the cff.org site by clicking 'Read the latest issue of Connections!' (cannot copy and paste here while using Firefox...) I would have simply edited my first post, but I cannot access it or read the last few posts ahead of mine either. :-/
 

hmw

New member
I just realized there are posts cut off on this thread that for some reason I cannot see- hopefully if someone did link a press release I'll be able to view it the next time I log on!
The latest Connections newsletter can be accessed from the home page on the cff.org site by clicking 'Read the latest issue of Connections!' (cannot copy and paste here while using Firefox...) I would have simply edited my first post, but I cannot access it or read the last few posts ahead of mine either. :-/
 
H

hammerpocket

Guest
It appears the blog linked to above was giving more information than allowed by the study. All the posts since March 6 have been deleted.
 
H

hammerpocket

Guest
It appears the blog linked to above was giving more information than allowed by the study. All the posts since March 6 have been deleted.
 

sandy52546

New member
My grandson has the same mutations as your child. He is 4. I would be very interested to know how your child is doing and what treatments you are doing. The only thing he does is the vest. He is PS. Thanks so much. Do you know if his mutations qualify for the new drug?
 

sandy52546

New member
My grandson has the same mutations as your child. He is 4. I would be very interested to know how your child is doing and what treatments you are doing. The only thing he does is the vest. He is PS. Thanks so much. Do you know if his mutations qualify for the new drug?
 

Anomie

New member
BTW: All of the posts from the girl's blog still appear to be deleted. If you have found them then please post the link.
 

Anomie

New member
BTW: All of the posts from the girl's blog still appear to be deleted. If you have found them then please post the link.
 

Aboveallislove

Super Moderator
The following are some excerpts I found on yahoo's Vertex message board by someone who posted after listening to the investor conferences. Includes some additional insights on Vertx's plans for moving forward:

Post 1
2) Basically asked, "what's wrong with 809, that you are also doing 661." Vertex noted that it makes sense to go forward with two drugs because of the value for the expanded market, but also that CFF is funding entire research of 661 so in a sense a "feebie" (my word.) When asked the difference, Vertex noted basically the same with the only difference being that 661 has better tissue distribution in the lungs. (I noted 3 differences--which all may be related--between 661/809 in earlier posts). But just not sure if that will translate to better clinical results.
3) Stressed safety and SC is again factor for moving to Phase 3 and if safe and significant SC reduction (wish someone would ask what that means--just statistically significant or something more?), they would go to Phase 3.
4) Asked whether there was a path forward under both these scenerios: a) Overall average benefit to all; or b) A sub-set have a significant benefit and others none. Vertex said yes, path forward to approval under either scernerio and other drugs have been approved when only a sub-set benefits from the drugs.
5) Today mentioned 6 or 12 months for phase 3 longer-term; yesterday spoke of 12 months.
6) Again stressed that FEV might no longer be the controlling clinical improvement needed for approval given these are first drugs that treat underlying defect--mentioned weight, excerbations, quality of life, sc, as other potential clinical outcomes.

Post 2
3. After this and the last conference, I am more and more optimistic that 809/770 will go to Phase 3: After listening to the conference I said to dh with happy tears, this is going to Phase 3. The tone was very different and Vertex stressed that the issue is safety and sc and not FEV1--which they think might take as long as a year to show improvement. Re SC, Vertex noted that in Phase 2a, several participants had substantial reduction in SC and Vertex hopes that with higher dosing and longer time more participants will show higher reductions. And if safe, they will move to Phase 3, whether a reduction in FEV1 or not--a reduction would be great, but not expecting one b/c it might take up to a year to see such an improvement. This conference was the first such affirmative comment re moving to Phase 3. Vertex also noted that it would be in discussion with the FDA concerning what is needed to show clinical improvement and the inference was that Vertex thinks SC should be enough because they are altering the modulation and that is what SC measures. (As an aside, interestingly, at least to me, Vertex noted that it knew the approval of 770 was coming early.) Vertex also noted that it expects Phase 3 to be a year-long study. The presenter pushed Vertex on FEV saying the FDA might require a reduction in FEV for approval and if so, what reduction would be needed for approval. Vertex noted that in the last year Europe approved a drug with less than a 5% reduction.

Post 3
Was only listening with half-an-ear, but did find one new tidbit of interest. Vertex noted that the most frequent question it was getting was what results were needed for combo to move forward. Vertex explained that primary end points were SC and safety and that it might take as much as 6 months for FEV improvement to show, but that if they could see improvement in SC that would show they were addressing the underlying defect and support further testing even if no significant improvement in FEV. Didn't give a specific SC level of improvement, but those comments lead me to be more optimistic re the 809/770 combo moving to Phase 3 because 770's FEV improvement was pretty immediate, yet Vertex seemed open to seeing if a longer time frame was needed to see FEV1 improvement with combo, so long as there is an improvement in SC. How much of an improvement is up for debate: I would predict if Vertex can get a 30 point improvement in SC, it will move forward to Phase 3. A 60 point improvement translated into 10-15% in FEV for 770, so maybe 30 will be a 5 -8 improvement if given time.
 

Aboveallislove

Super Moderator
The following are some excerpts I found on yahoo's Vertex message board by someone who posted after listening to the investor conferences. Includes some additional insights on Vertx's plans for moving forward:

Post 1
2) Basically asked, "what's wrong with 809, that you are also doing 661." Vertex noted that it makes sense to go forward with two drugs because of the value for the expanded market, but also that CFF is funding entire research of 661 so in a sense a "feebie" (my word.) When asked the difference, Vertex noted basically the same with the only difference being that 661 has better tissue distribution in the lungs. (I noted 3 differences--which all may be related--between 661/809 in earlier posts). But just not sure if that will translate to better clinical results.
3) Stressed safety and SC is again factor for moving to Phase 3 and if safe and significant SC reduction (wish someone would ask what that means--just statistically significant or something more?), they would go to Phase 3.
4) Asked whether there was a path forward under both these scenerios: a) Overall average benefit to all; or b) A sub-set have a significant benefit and others none. Vertex said yes, path forward to approval under either scernerio and other drugs have been approved when only a sub-set benefits from the drugs.
5) Today mentioned 6 or 12 months for phase 3 longer-term; yesterday spoke of 12 months.
6) Again stressed that FEV might no longer be the controlling clinical improvement needed for approval given these are first drugs that treat underlying defect--mentioned weight, excerbations, quality of life, sc, as other potential clinical outcomes.

Post 2
3. After this and the last conference, I am more and more optimistic that 809/770 will go to Phase 3: After listening to the conference I said to dh with happy tears, this is going to Phase 3. The tone was very different and Vertex stressed that the issue is safety and sc and not FEV1--which they think might take as long as a year to show improvement. Re SC, Vertex noted that in Phase 2a, several participants had substantial reduction in SC and Vertex hopes that with higher dosing and longer time more participants will show higher reductions. And if safe, they will move to Phase 3, whether a reduction in FEV1 or not--a reduction would be great, but not expecting one b/c it might take up to a year to see such an improvement. This conference was the first such affirmative comment re moving to Phase 3. Vertex also noted that it would be in discussion with the FDA concerning what is needed to show clinical improvement and the inference was that Vertex thinks SC should be enough because they are altering the modulation and that is what SC measures. (As an aside, interestingly, at least to me, Vertex noted that it knew the approval of 770 was coming early.) Vertex also noted that it expects Phase 3 to be a year-long study. The presenter pushed Vertex on FEV saying the FDA might require a reduction in FEV for approval and if so, what reduction would be needed for approval. Vertex noted that in the last year Europe approved a drug with less than a 5% reduction.

Post 3
Was only listening with half-an-ear, but did find one new tidbit of interest. Vertex noted that the most frequent question it was getting was what results were needed for combo to move forward. Vertex explained that primary end points were SC and safety and that it might take as much as 6 months for FEV improvement to show, but that if they could see improvement in SC that would show they were addressing the underlying defect and support further testing even if no significant improvement in FEV. Didn't give a specific SC level of improvement, but those comments lead me to be more optimistic re the 809/770 combo moving to Phase 3 because 770's FEV improvement was pretty immediate, yet Vertex seemed open to seeing if a longer time frame was needed to see FEV1 improvement with combo, so long as there is an improvement in SC. How much of an improvement is up for debate: I would predict if Vertex can get a 30 point improvement in SC, it will move forward to Phase 3. A 60 point improvement translated into 10-15% in FEV for 770, so maybe 30 will be a 5 -8 improvement if given time.
 

rmotion

New member
The following are some excerpts I found on yahoo's Vertex message board by someone who posted after listening to the investor conferences. Includes some additional insights on Vertx's plans for moving forward:

Post 1
2) Basically asked, "what's wrong with 809, that you are also doing 661." Vertex noted that it makes sense to go forward with two drugs because of the value for the expanded market, but also that CFF is funding entire research of 661 so in a sense a "feebie" (my word.) When asked the difference, Vertex noted basically the same with the only difference being that 661 has better tissue distribution in the lungs. (I noted 3 differences--which all may be related--between 661/809 in earlier posts). But just not sure if that will translate to better clinical results.
3) Stressed safety and SC is again factor for moving to Phase 3 and if safe and significant SC reduction (wish someone would ask what that means--just statistically significant or something more?), they would go to Phase 3.
4) Asked whether there was a path forward under both these scenerios: a) Overall average benefit to all; or b) A sub-set have a significant benefit and others none. Vertex said yes, path forward to approval under either scernerio and other drugs have been approved when only a sub-set benefits from the drugs.
5) Today mentioned 6 or 12 months for phase 3 longer-term; yesterday spoke of 12 months.
6) Again stressed that FEV might no longer be the controlling clinical improvement needed for approval given these are first drugs that treat underlying defect--mentioned weight, excerbations, quality of life, sc, as other potential clinical outcomes.

Post 2
3. After this and the last conference, I am more and more optimistic that 809/770 will go to Phase 3: After listening to the conference I said to dh with happy tears, this is going to Phase 3. The tone was very different and Vertex stressed that the issue is safety and sc and not FEV1--which they think might take as long as a year to show improvement. Re SC, Vertex noted that in Phase 2a, several participants had substantial reduction in SC and Vertex hopes that with higher dosing and longer time more participants will show higher reductions. And if safe, they will move to Phase 3, whether a reduction in FEV1 or not--a reduction would be great, but not expecting one b/c it might take up to a year to see such an improvement. This conference was the first such affirmative comment re moving to Phase 3. Vertex also noted that it would be in discussion with the FDA concerning what is needed to show clinical improvement and the inference was that Vertex thinks SC should be enough because they are altering the modulation and that is what SC measures. (As an aside, interestingly, at least to me, Vertex noted that it knew the approval of 770 was coming early.) Vertex also noted that it expects Phase 3 to be a year-long study. The presenter pushed Vertex on FEV saying the FDA might require a reduction in FEV for approval and if so, what reduction would be needed for approval. Vertex noted that in the last year Europe approved a drug with less than a 5% reduction.

Post 3
Was only listening with half-an-ear, but did find one new tidbit of interest. Vertex noted that the most frequent question it was getting was what results were needed for combo to move forward. Vertex explained that primary end points were SC and safety and that it might take as much as 6 months for FEV improvement to show, but that if they could see improvement in SC that would show they were addressing the underlying defect and support further testing even if no significant improvement in FEV. Didn't give a specific SC level of improvement, but those comments lead me to be more optimistic re the 809/770 combo moving to Phase 3 because 770's FEV improvement was pretty immediate, yet Vertex seemed open to seeing if a longer time frame was needed to see FEV1 improvement with combo, so long as there is an improvement in SC. How much of an improvement is up for debate: I would predict if Vertex can get a 30 point improvement in SC, it will move forward to Phase 3. A 60 point improvement translated into 10-15% in FEV for 770, so maybe 30 will be a 5 -8 improvement if given time.

thanks good info
it would make sense to go forward with 770/809 because it works and maybe tehy can sell it in the interim - they have a lot of pressure from the cf community, then when 661 they can switch.


But doesnt this newest deal with cff and pfizer throw cold water on vertex?

http://nacfcdl.cff.org/Documents/NACFC%202012_Boyle_Phase%202%20VX809-ivacaftor%20results.pdf
 

Aboveallislove

Super Moderator
I don't think so. I think it shows that the CFF is more interested in a cure than who finds it. Pfizer bought FoldRX which had previously received funds from CFF (2008/09 I believe) and FoldRx uses a yeast-based high thorough-put mechanism for screaning molecules. I think that is a different mechanism for screening that used by Vertex. And given Vertex's latest info that it has discoved the need for a combination of correctors in addition to Kalydeco (2 or possibly 3 plus Kalydeco), it would make sense to have multiple companies looking for the corrector using different mechanisms. I think that we are truly at the beginning of the end of the search and that 809 and then 661 is the first step and that Vertex and Pfizer might have second, third, fourth generations and possibly some working with each other. Google FoldRX and cystic fibrosis and you'll see some of the info I'm mentioning--sounds like FoldRX found within 1 year a good invitro corrector and that it shows CFF that it's method of screening is sound too! In short: I'd rather have more hens laying more eggs than putting all the eggs in one basket!
 

GenH

New member
I agree, its great to see that there are multiple companies with multiple approaches researching cftr modulation. This will hopefully accelerate the process of developing future medications, and may also bring the price down with competition!
 

bigstar

New member
Ιm checking yahoo's Vertex message board everyday. Im so so anxious to find out something about those trials. I cant wait for the vx 809 phase III to start. What i noticed is that as far as vx 661 is concerned, vertex is not revealing any clues about this phase II before its over. Why is that such big a secret?
 
Top