@Tunnah and others, happy for you to contribute on the CYP thread but please add more than effectively "MSB will go up and CYP will go down because I hold MSB".
Firstly, a number of posters are saying if FDA approves MSB that is bad news for other MSC providers, I consider it to be the opposite.
a) MSB has been a pioneer in this space investing enormous capital and time and has made this a much easier to navigate space for new entries. For example, the FDA response to MSB also sets a much clearer path moving forward, not just for MSB but also for CYP and for regulators themselves.
Further, there are 100s of MSC applications for which trials are being run and space for many companies.
b) Specifically re GvHD which is a common space both MSB and CYP are going after, again I believe progress by MSB in this space will benefit newer differentiated products. Note:
- this is not a company maker, it is the smallest in a suite of applications both CYP and MSB are targeting.
- clinical trials have shown MSB's product to not work for adults but only children who tend to respond better to MSCs, CYP's has been shown in clinical trials to work exceptionally well for adults.
- FDA has highlighted significant concerns re the consistency of the MSB product and MSB is yet to even demonstrate how they think they may be able to rectify this, let alone actually do something about it. CYP's product solves this issue.
- MSB has not demonstrated ability for production at scale, they have been unable to meet product demands for their on average 4 customers per week in Japan. Based on MSB's head of manufacturing, production at scale is a long way off, he believes it can be achieved with a lot of work, collaboration AND financial investment, to me this suggests at best speculation that it can be achieved. CYP claims to be able to produce at scale, this was demonstrated by already producing cells required for the very large forthcoming OA trial (hundreds of participants) in a short period of time.
- first mover means relatively little with such a product (assuming MSB ends up being successful in being able to increase production). It's not like MSB is a trendy product and sick people will fall in love with their branding. Users will want the most effective, most available, most consistent (and all else equal cheapest) product on the market.
If MSB posters here believe that MSB approval in GvHD is a negative for CYP then I'd like to know explicitly why they believe that.
On another point, the discussion re patents, MSB posters keep bringing up that MSB owns this space.
@Stickshift can you please just refer to at least one patent that you think may be infringed as I have no idea where you speculation comes from other than other rampers on the MSB thread? CYP also has a myriad of patents relating to its own processes. Ralom posts about some expiring in 2028 but knows very well that the CYP process involves numerous patents that build upon each other. Further if MSB posters want to keep claiming breach of patents then please refer to which patent is being breached rather than make completely unsubstantiated claims. I could in the same way say CYP is the first to be able to produce at scale, hence any attempt by MSB to produce at scale would be a breach of CYP's patent...but I'm not a blatant downramper, I know that these involve very different processes.
(20min delay)
