Hey
@cableguy1411. I was also in IMU, but after researching RAC, I decided that was where my money would go. I have done a brief comparison of IMU and RAC
here. Please, keep in mind that the poster I had replied to had ticked me off a little, so the overall demeanour of the post may tend to the firm side.
I first want to say that I wish IMU all the best and have established relationships with posters over there. This comparison doesn't take anything away from them.
The major differences that I see between the two companies are:
-
clinical maturity and risk: Bisantrene is a standout here. The CF33 play is reailstically a 0.1% chance of success from preclinical to approval. I'm not sure how IMUs therapies will go in comparison to established SOC drugs if they are not more effective.
-
management transparency, communication, spending, and strategy implementation and execution: One of the things that frustrated me about IMU was how slow things progressed. Have they got an IND for CF33 yet? That was due in December 2020 I believe, and I may be wrong, but I have not seen any communication regarding this.
-
pipeline competition: all of IMUs drugs have to beat the competition HER2 / PD1 - I've heard Dr. T state that it's very hard to have something approved if it is safer, it also needs to be better. Bisantrene has no competition.
-
revenue potential: IMUs pipeline is to target cancers in a space crowded with established competition that are also taking the money. As an FTO inhibitor, bisantrene currently has no competition and overexpression of FTO crosses into metabolic and neurological diseases/disorders as well as neuropathic pain.
--
I'm not convinced with IMU until I see the HR with a 95% confidence interval that stays below 1 and is tighter. They've only used an 80% CI in their interim HER2 results which indicate that if they had used a 95% CI their results would not have been significant. The 95% CI is a measure of accuracy - can we be 95% confident that the effect will land between these two points. Of course, if you have a 95% CI with an upper bound above one, then you have the possibility that the therapy confers no additional benefit.
By comparison, there are multiple examples where I can show herceptin (arguably the most common HER2 therapy) with a 95% CI as shown here between say 0.42 and 0.74 accross two cohorts. What this means is that there is a much greater chance of it working consistently every time.
This data then indicates to me that they have a subset of HER2 patients that will respond really well to B-cell technology (as you can see by the lower bound 95% CI of 0.18) and some that do not (upper bound 95% CI of 0.94). Whereas, people are more likely to respond to herceptin all the time (95% CI between 0.4 and 0.6). Thus, based on this data, IMUs therapy would be applicable to a subset of people B-cell technology would be applicable for and you then decrease the number of potential patients and earnings.
My thoughts.
(20min delay)