Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

MSB

Click for more information

4.52%

92.5¢ mesoblast limited

MSB 2022 - The road to commercialisation, page-1378

First 1378 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
dachopper

4,177 Posts.

5443

14/07/22

18:54

Post #: 62542311
Share

Originally posted by JB1975: ↑

Phaedrus (in bold) to me wrote:

"its good to see that you're reasoning your way through this, and starting to put the assays into a more detailed perspective. "If you think I'm stuck somewhere in the reasoning process that is stopping me moving ahead to where you are I'm happy to listen to what you have to say.

I say assays, but of course the release assays put forward by MSB to the FDA were in the form of an assay matrix - which can sound like a singular assay, when in fact its a plurality.
Yep

Steve Bauer acknowledged & agreed with the propriety of doing so at teh ODAC hearing. He did.

The assay elements may be biological or non-biological analytical i.e. 'analytical', as the FDA refer to them. They may even be some combination of these elements. All of that I agree with so far.

Confusing, I know.

But when Dr Eric Rose talks about "the assay" (in response to a dumb question from a stock analyst without notice), I think you should keep this in mind.
Dr Eric Rose certainly hasn't helped comprehension by referring to "the assay" (singular) that is for sure, because by speaking in that loose way he has given me cause to doubt the reliability of some of the other things he has said - once I conclude a speaker is dumbing things down (either for an audience or because the speaker is dumb) I then doubt the other things that speaker says more than I would have.

I'm not sure if I have already mentioned that Dr Rose didn't actually answer the whole question that he was asked - the whole question included an inquiry about the role of Phillip Krause - and that question was a rephrasing by Silviu Itescu - so I kind of expected Dr Rose to respect SI and I took his failure to mention PK in his answer as suggestive that Dr Rose might have too may seasons behind him to be still listening and speaking clearly. It seemed like he was saying talking points that he anticipated using earlier but then didn't adapt to the actual question that including Krause. Dr Rose spoke very very slowly and used a lot of ums and ahs. He had me thinking of media comments sometimes expressed about Joe Biden's state of mind.

I have an MSB announcement I printed out dated August 31 2021 - Operational Highlights (etc) that says (bullet point 4)

"FDA indicated that the potency assays"

(please note that is plural and specifically says potency assays not something else - like "in vitro immunological activity" which is a phrase which gets used in the 31 December 2021 announcement but which is imprecise in what it is referring to)

"currently in development appear to be reasonable based on in vitro results provided in the briefing document, the in vitro activity of the product appears to be relatively well established, through the relationship between in vitro activity and the product's actual mechanism of action remains theoretical".

You referred to and excerpted an entire page, page 8 in particular I suppose, because "3 Multiple assays (assay matrix) starts on page 8.

But that is actually the third section of III Recommendations for Potency Measurement part B
What Analytical Methods May be Used to Measure Potency? - that starts on page 7.

So you introduce it - but you haven't done anything with it in your post to relate it back to MSB's circumstances.

So, there is a huge degree of flexiibility available to MSB in meeting these requirements IMO

There might have once been a huge degree of flexibility available to MSB in meeting matrix assay requirements but that is not I submit the pressing matter at hand - which offers far less flexibility because a new potency assay that wasn't available at the time of the pivotal trial needs to be linked (shown to be relevant to) the results that were obtained from that trial - I think that the pressing matter at hand is better summarised by these paragraphs MSB's 31 December 2021 announcement page 1, 3 and 4 paras up from the bottom -

"Mesoblast has now generated substantial new data which it believes establish the relevance of the proposed in vitro immunomodulatory activity of remestemcel-L to the clinical effect of the product in the completed Phase 3 trial in pediatric SR-aGVHD, including to survival outcomes and biomarkers of the product's in vivo activity. Mesoblast will provide these new data to OTAT and address other remaining CRL items as required for the BLA resubmission.

(I'm reading the underlined bit to be a reference to the new assay)

"By demonstrating the relevance of the in vitro potency assay to clinical outcomes, Mesoblast believes it will be able to show that the remestemcel-L product used in the Phase 3 trial in pediatric Sr a-GvHD was standardized as to identity, strength, quality, purity and dosage form, and that this will address OTAT's recommendation for an additional adequate and well-controlled study"

The green bits - the statements of what MSB believes - I can see readily enough as serving as legal escape hatches for sued MSB executives if their beliefs are mistaken for certainties.

The bit I need help with is, where my reasoning process is getting stuck (if you are correct) or where I am failing to suspend enough disbelief (if I am correct) is associating the blue bits (which I assume is what Dr Rose is referring to as the potency assay they've reverted to) with the yellow bit by any possible plausible scientific or methodological means.

Now I assume its common ground by all readers of this forum that MSB have not disclosed publicly what the new assay is that would be the blue bit.

Where I part company with someone like ddwn for instance though is that I am not interested in or satisfied with just 'waiting and seeing' or with 'just trusting MSB management' have it all under control.

MSB is a listed public company and it could be either great buying or terrible buying now depending on whether the orange bit achieved in accordance with managements hopes or not.

I think a stock discussion forum is just the right place to consider what the blue bits could possibly be. I think doing some speculation constrained by analysis is actually good.

Linking the blue bit to the yellow bit is essential for the success of the orange bit. So correctly identify either some possible way to make the blue bit link to the yellow bit could be profitable (a person could buy now) as could identifying that there is no possible way to make any possible value of the blue bit link to the yellow bit (perhaps a person could profit by shorting). BTW - I don't short.

If it is impossible even in principle to link the blue bit to the yellow bit with any science or method that anyone can think of then the orange bit is doomed and some share holders might end up discovering the importance of the green bits as escape clauses but not for them.

When I try to come up with a way that might make the blue bit match up with the yellow bit to possibly achieve the orange bit the best I do so far is this.

Suppose the new potency assay (the blue bit) is Interferon Gamma Receptor expression. Suppose that inhibition of interleukin 2 receptor alpha expression on co-cultured activated T cells (the activity test from the first BLA and from the ODAC papers) is valid. This (activity test from the time of the phase 3 trial) might then provide a hook (something to be correlated with) to all the yellow bits (the biomarker stuff, the survival stuff).

Could Interferon Gamma Receptor expression be a potency assay? I don't know. I don't have quite enough science knowledge to know but I have enough to spit ball it as a possibility.

Interferon gamma is a pro-inflammatory cytokine like tumor necrosis factor alpha but it binds to a different receptor - the interferon gamma receptor and so activates a different pathway which produces IDO which can act on T cells. All of that could be done in vitro. Lots of interferon gamma related papers exist - even Klinker and Bauer have written papers that seem relevant to interferon gamma activity in T cells in vitro.

In some of SI's investor slides (he has IDO and IFNgamma indicated in red. And IDO is also linked to pathways that affect T cells.

If interferon gamma receptor levels did prove to be a meaningful measurement of anti-T cell activity via the INFgamma IDO pathway then so what? Can that be linked to IL2Ralpha data as a sort of hook for correlating data associated with the 3 donors and 40 odd lots that were already used in the phase 3 trial? I don't know.

But I prefer to think like this - to look for possibilities than to just wait and see.

Expand

Well... I don't think you are going to convince yourself that MSB can achieve what they believe they can achieve. Here are some other bits that might help you.

https://www.fda.gov/media/140996/download
7 - Stability program

paraphrased
"The Donor Cell Banks previously manufactured by Osiris in 2008 and 2009 are stored long term , MESOBLAST AND OSIRIS performed long-term stability studies for the DCB's, demonstrating that the DCB maintain product quality attributes for identity, potency, and safety for over 132 months at -135 Celcius in LN2 vaopour phase.

DCB's have been sufccessfully processed to DS and subsequently DP using these DCB's for over 12 years ( data on file )
...... There is a large body of evidence that demonstrate cryogenically frozen human stem cell banks remain stable over long - term storage ( for over 20 years )

So,

That document was dated 2020, when the company could only possibly at a maximum have kept the cell banks for 12 years ( which is how long they had data for them ). It would be fair to say they still have the original donor banks that were used for all the experimental treatments from 2008 onwards ( includes some protocol 280 and some GVHD001)

There is no mention of pre-2008 banks, which would be the un optimised produtct if that were the case, those cells were used in 275, and majority of 280.

Therefore,

If the company still has all the original donor cell banks ( which it did when it filed the ODAC briefing documents )
They would be in a position then, to re-test the cell banks using whatever new potency assay they could come up with.

Furthermore - since they are still manufacturing the product.
They would be able to test the manufactured product, with further assay(s)

The parts which are not clear,
a. Do they have finished product that they used in the trials, which they could test using the new release assay, if yes this is a straight forward home run.
b. If they don't, is it sufficient that they link the master cell bank potency assay directly to clinical outcomes. They could do this, and if the FDA accepts it then that is also a home run.
c. If A and B are not possible, they could create new lots using the new release assays from the original donor cell banks, which could then demonstrate in Vitro the new potency assays.
d.If A - C are all not aceptable, but it turns out the company are allready tracking biomarkers, then all they need are the new assays applied to inventory that has been used to treat people in the trial, that would allow the linking of an additional assay to patient outcomes.
e. This is a matrix approach, and collectively, together point B might be ok, if the IL2 activity is also accepted and whatever other new assay which could be applied to the master cell bank to gather evidence.

Last edited by dachopper: 14/07/22

MSB Price at posting: 84.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
14 Upvote

4 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

From the Floor with Kim Beazley at Diggers and Dealers 2024

Wealth Within: Why the stock market isn't going to crash and more with Dale Gillham

SGQ

St George shares rise 20% on Brazilian niobium acquisition

From the Floor with Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton at Diggers & Dealers 2024

Revolutionary inverter technology leads the clean energy charge

There are more pages in this discussion • 151 more messages in this thread...

First 1378 Last

Add MSB (ASX) to my watchlist

(20min delay)
Last 92.5¢		Change 0.040(4.52%)		Mkt cap ! $1.067B

Open	High	Low	Value	Volume
88.5¢	95.0¢	88.0¢	$3.552M	3.861M

Buyers (Bids)

No.	Vol.	Price($)
12	51667	92.5¢

Sellers (Offers)

Price($)	Vol.	No.
93.0¢	161747	20

View Market Depth

No.	Vol.	Price($)
12	51667	0.925
17	169899	0.920
23	363795	0.915
15	699519	0.910
7	115341	0.905

Price($)	Vol.	No.
0.930	161747	20
0.935	203258	17
0.940	132418	13
0.945	158111	9
0.950	49989	8

Last trade - 13.56pm 06/08/2024 (20 minute delay)

MSB (ASX) Chart