Listen to the presentation. Azixa has efficacy in peripheral tumors. Its potential in ovarian cancer seems even better than in brain cancer.
Epct sold the rights to the Azixa molecule (and some others) to Myriad Genetics (mygn). They spun off Myriad Pharma (myrx) a couple of months ago. Mygn kept all the gentetic testing stuff. Myrx took all the experimental pipeline pharma drugs, including Azixa. Azixa is worth milestones and a royalty worth up to 10% of sales to epct.
That said it is true that the monotherapy against primary brain cancer have started in phase II. That represents expenditures for Myrx. It is, seen in a logic perspective, reasonable to see the monotherapy as having efficacy. The reason to stop recruting to the combind trial was the side effects of the combination substance.
Talley, Epicept, who have a joint group together with Myrx about the Azixa trial, have stated that things look "good" in a webcast in late spring.
I agree that Azixa is a fascinating drug. It has seemed full of promise from the beginning but the amazing characteristics apparent in pre-clinical trials don't seem to be reflected in the actual trials. There is this brain penetration apparently but we don't see significant effects on human brain cancer tumours being touted. I've listened specifically for indications of dramatic results in human experiments but I haven't heard any. Are there any I have missed? Ages ago a fellow on the mygn board - Pedrorojo - said that he did not trust the hooha about Azixa yet because of the lack of recist results in the phase 1 trials. I noted this because I found it unsetting and have looked ever since for some clear evidence to refute this but have not found any.
(Please note, I am not short. I've been invested in epct, for my sins, for a few years. I think of Azixa as a wild card that I don't have to bank on. I think ceplene is a much more certain bet, albeit less dramatic in the world of speculation. And I think the rest of the pipeline holds promise too.)
The hiv drug sounds very impressive too - they have the only 'maturation inhibitor' around but regard their first in class oral drug as the 4th major class of anti hiv drugs. They think they've invented a major new class of anti hiv drug, and some strains of hiv are not resistant to it where they are to protease inhibitors.
All the impressive evidence of effect comes from mice experiments but not the trials. In mice there's tumour regression but he doesn't mention that in trials - he does mention longer survival with some patients though.
I'd like to see evidence of effect on tumours from the trials.