any expert here want to say why scientifically INO's approach is better?
Petit: Again, I believe that Advaxis' immunotherapies could be a disruptive innovation in immunotherapies.
In order to have an effective immunotherapy, four essential elements are needed.
1. Access to Antigen Presenting Cells (APCs) -cells that direct the immune response to the right target. Unlike autologous immunotherapies, our immunotherapies do not require that you remove the dendritic cells and process them in a laboratory and make each person's cells their own treatment. Our immunotherapy vector meets the dendritic cells where they are, inside the patient and therefore one treatment can be used for every patient.
2. A strong cytotoxic T-cell response against tumor antigens is required. Advaxis immunotherapies generate a strong T-cell response to clear Listeria that is redirected to the tumor via the secreted antigens.
3. The ability to over-ride something called "Checkpoint Inhibitors" and "negative regulators" of cellular immunity is required. These checkpoint inhibitors are something utilized by cancerous masses to neutralize the immune response. Acute "perceived" listeriosis stimulates a maximum immune response that over-rides the checkpoint inhibitors.
4. The ability to over-ride Treg and MDSCs within tumor microenvironment, enabling killer T cells to kill tumor cells is required. Advaxis immunotherapies generate specific T-cells that access the protected tumor microenvironment and suppress immune protective cells within the tumor.
Other immunotherapies are trying to accomplish these elements through targeting specific aspects of this chain of components, however, to our knowledge, Advaxis' platform technology is the only immunotherapy that integrates all of these element into a comprehensive, single, well-tolerated, easy to manufacture and administer immunotherapy.
The problem is they went after the really big, dangerous fish that can snap your line pretty easily rather going after the school of smaller, but still pretty meaty fish that Inovio did.
ADXS is targeting end stage cancer with a cancer immunotherapy (after it already metastasized). Stage 4 disease is a tough one to treat, even when it is caused by HPV, because by the tame it is stage 4, it has already accumulated so many additional mutations that it may not matter at that point that you get an immune response to the HPV that initiated the tumor. Heck the cells may have already lost the HPV infection at that point, but not the mutations.
INO is targeting precancers (dysplasias) that are definitely caused by HPV, and the cervical or anal cells are still infected and harbor the HPV signature. Meaning a vaccine can clear the infected cells, which have not turned into frank cancer yet.
If ADXS would have targeted the same patients and disease as INO, I would have invested in ADXS (not instead of INO, I would have put some other money into ADXS) for their HPV vaccine because listeriolysin O is a very potent adjuvant and activates host immunity quite well. But that's about all ADXS is targeting.
They don't have an HCV vaccine, or a HBV vaccine, or a melanoma vaccine, or an HIV vaccine, or a leukemia vaccine, or a prostate cancer vaccine, or an influenza vaccine, or a pan-influenza vaccine, or an RSV vaccine, or a tuberculosis vaccine, or a ... do you catch my drift yet?
Im surprised by your post. Normally you are acurate and informative and do not waver from the fact like some other cheerleaders on the INO board. Again nobody is concerned with facts about this thread. Advaxis has a prostrate vaccine and also a leukemia (radioactive isotope target listeria) in the same stage preclinical development as INO. The protrate trial will start in 2014. Does INO have any completed P2 trials? Does INO have 2 FDA orphan drug designations yet on their hpv vaccine like ADXS?. Like I said if you want to take the time to post please take the time to be accurate with your facts. Of course very few care about truth here.
The problem is you are wrong. Advaxiss went for both stage 4 terminal and precancerous hpv infected women. The Hpv P2 results were inconclusive due to the eight women who dropped out. So your idea they only went after the terminal patients is wrong. Secondly if you look at the numbers in the final results PR you will see your 18% is also not correct. Survival for the CIN P2 is 35% 28% for 12 and 18 months respectively. I know nobody really cares about honesty but if youre going to post atleast take 30 seconds to look at the results. I have no clue as to where you got the 18% from but the actual survivor rates are about double that. That also contains 8 of the 32% with full response which means no tumors. Why post numbers that you know are incorrect?
It doesn't matter how good your science is if your management sucks! What's the point in owning a stealth fighter plane if you can't fly? Do they have an independent judging their results? Do they have best in class results? (and more than one). Better still, how many partners do they have? Having a partner or partners like Inovio have shows us that others DO believe in Inovios science. Confidence is very important and until ADXS get a partner who is willing to pump money into their science, then they will suffer as they have been over the last 6 months.
Steve this post really shows how ignorant you are. You know little about AzDXS and it shows. Business wise and market price INO has out preformed ADXS. No arguement.
Where your crazy train jumps off the tracks is your best in class bs. Advaxis has completed the first CIN P2. 28% of the women who were supposed to be dead last year are still alive. The numbers for safety and partial and full responses are the best ever results. They are better ithan ANY previous P3 result. The FDA numbers are factual. You cannot disputed the numbers. INO cannot be compared to ADXS because they are not comparing themselves to ADXS. INO has no final P2 result and all their previous cervical cancer results have been sorely lagging the better Advaxis results in efficacy. INO has never had a full reponse which mean no more tumor burden. Ino may be best in class but the results have not been as good as Advaxis in P1 and they have no P2 numbers. The best in class results have yet to be better than Advaxis. Best in class means nothing when you refuse to compare the results to ADXS.
Also Advaxis does not need a partner. They now have 23 million dollars from the offering. Things change STEVE but your unreasonable fear and hatred driven lies about any other stock is just wrong. Ive taken a beating in my Advaxis investment. That was the risk going in. Now I will just hold it longer than I planned and see what happens. However your ignorance again required correction. No go ahead and respond your normal way and ignore the question of how can INO be best in class when All of Advaxis results have been beter. You can't answer that and I don't expect you to. Heck you even thought listeria was a vitus.
When INO has one subject become tumor fre let me know.
Is this peer reviewed technology? What phase trials are they currently conducting? Do they use electroporation? If not, how is theirs so successful? Do they have as strong of results as Inovio?
ADXS doesn't use electroporation, as its product is a vaccine-fusion protein expressed on the surface of a type of bacteria normally found in human. We just have to wait for more clinical results to see if the system is as good as it claimed. The current stock price is even lower than the 2ndary offering price after the initial result of phase 2. It may be better off for ADXS to collaborate or to licence the SynCon technology from INO to get around the HPV strain issue to improve efficacy.