"I seem to remember that IMU was not the only interested party in acquiring Azer-cel. IMU snatched it away from some other interested parties. I don’t recall the question being asked as to why did Precision choose IMU over other interested parties, but at the time I thought it was for two reasons."
Thanks TB, your logic is absolutely sound and without repeating your points, I wanted to raise the possibility of a third reason. Other key players in the allogeneic Car-T space were walking away. For instance, Allogene advised last month that they were phasing out two key studies in late line lymphoma. Ditto, Adicet. Reference is made to the article, Two allogeneic cell therapy switches in a day by Jacob Plieth published 5 January 2024.
It appears to me that whoever took azer-cel forward needed conviction.
That's what Imugene brought to the table. The problem with allogeneic Car-T is similar, but with different characteristics, to the problem with autologous Car-T. There is an issue with relapse that is in part at least tied to a lack of durability. The article linked by@Jov88 in his Post #: 72196503 is an excellent place to begin to understand the why-is-it-so. If you read the article do a word search on T cell exhaustion.
So, why does Imugene have the conviction that azer-cel not only works but can produce a durable response? I can only guess management thinking, but I think its to do with the section in the aforementioned article on Future Perspectives. In short, you need to activate the anti-tumor response of the bodies own immune system in combination with Car-T therapy in order to overcome relapse and maintain long term remission. In my own reckoning, the relevant data from the Phase 1 study demonstrated the case in point albeit the bodies own immune system was given a big leg up by the patients re-engineered T cells. Just when those auto Car-T cells ran out of puff along came azer-cel. Its a bit like manoeuvre warfare. Funnily enough that's how the immune system actually works.
(20min delay)
