CellSyde

@chesir3cat @barinder_sangha Yeah, no way they fumble again 🤞

@CellSyde @barinder_sangha This is a reasonable assumption but is Marc reasonable?

Why did $ABVX spend half its primer defining cancer background rates? Because they already have the data. Management rationally only frames these benchmarks because they know upcoming blended safety rates will land safely within them. Expectations anchored.

Well would you look at that, the smartest people in the room were right!

@TOWiU2 @Taintslapp12283 At least they haven’t got an anal abscess and bronchitis - ain’t nobody got time for that!

Now $ABVX is no longer investable at all, the high dose of Obe caused 2 x pregnancy, none with placebo or 25 mg! @Taintslapp12283

POV: @seedy19tron on $ABVX calls

@AnotherKoreanX It’s ok they’ll probably wish NMSC on you, because they think it’s so deadly.

If you send me death threats via DM because you think I've been jinxing $ABVX, I will gladly stop... NOT

>20% say they’d prefer ulcerative colitis FML

@ipollit77 @RNAiAnalyst Tell me you don’t know what basal cell carcinoma is, without telling me you don’t know what basal cell carcinoma is 🤡

@RNAiAnalyst Is this parody? What kind of ridiculous questions are these? Cancer is a serious issue in general. Maybe you should think about the MOA instead?

$abvx would you rather be diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma or moderate ulcerative colitis?

@JackMan724444 @RNAiAnalyst Hahah I laughed when I saw one person said UC - fucking clown 😂

@CellSyde @RNAiAnalyst looks like some idiots choice UC. .LOL Obviously they dont know what either is

$ABVX bulls before and after maintenance

@alex__pitti Just send them a link to Adam’s Yet Another Value Podcast episode, which addresses everything.

@CellSyde no cancer clustering and no evidence of immunosuppressant in phase 2

what does $abvx twitter think

@semodough Hopefully better than the last KOL 😂

$ABVX Truist Healthcare Conference Call - 1:00 PM ET: Biotech KOL Call on Inflammatory Bowel Disease; Digesting ABVX’s Data - Greg Renza

@chaotropy @A_May_MD And why didn’t they complete? Because they were in agony compared to those on Obefazimod!

Following up on @A_May_MD's observation: The placebo arm in $ABVX's Phase 3 ABTECT Maintenance trial had a much lower completion rate, around 34%, compared to roughly 79% for obefazimod 25 mg and 82% for 50 mg. I estimated accumulated patient-years over the 44-week phase. Patients who discontinued early contribute their average exposure time, based on three modelled patterns of discontinuation timing: front-loaded, uniform, and back-loaded. The actual pattern is unknown, and it may differ between arms. Under these assumptions, the placebo arm shows substantially lower total patient-years than the active arms. So event counts per patient could be misleading without adjusting for the actual accumulated patient-years per arm. Nevertheless, the 25 mg and 50 mg arms are very close to each other, so this won't explain any difference in malignancies between these groups. These are modelled estimates only, since exact per-patient exposure times are not disclosed. Disclosure: long $ABVX.

Brilliant @YetAnotherValue episode with @A_May_MD - required listening if you’re going to claim Obefazimod causes cancer $ABVX

@basadomente @TOWiU2 It’s such an important point. People assume the placebo arm has the same number of patient years and make unfair comparisons.

since we got a lot of slop posters on $ABVX, I was inspired by my own tweet to add my own to the mix. enjoy: Under reasonable assumptions, due solely to treatment time imbalance, a 5:1 drug:placebo NMSC ratio was the SINGLE MOST LIKELY OUTCOME in ABTECT maintenance. The setup. ABTECT re-randomized induction responders 1:1:1 to placebo (n=192), 25mg (n=193), and 50mg (n=195) for 44 weeks (~0.85 years). Placebo patients relapsed fast — only 34% completed vs ~80% on drug. To estimate exposure: completers contribute the full 44 weeks, dropouts ~half on average. That gives ~100 person-years for placebo vs ~295 for drug combined. Drug patients contributed ~75% of total exposure time (295 / 395). The model. 6 NMSC cases occurred. If all 6 were background events (age, prior skin cancer, prior immunosuppression — not drug-driven), how would they distribute across arms? Binomial(n=6, p=0.747). Each event independently "lands" in the drug arms with probability proportional to exposure time. Result: 5:1 was the most likely outcome. P(5 drug, 1 placebo) = 35.3% — the mode of the distribution. P(≥5 in drug arms) = 52.8%. A coin flip. [graph 1] The dose split. Within the drug arms, 5 cases split 1:4 between 25mg and 50mg. Exposure was nearly equal (~146 vs ~150 PY), so this is ~Binomial(5, 0.5). P(4+ in one arm) = 19.7% one-sided — like flipping a coin 5 times and getting 4 heads. Unusual but not remotely significant. Two-sided p = 0.375. [graph 2] Total NMSC count. We modeled expected background NMSC using claims-based incidence data (Rogers 2015, Muzic 2017), adjusted for UC risk and prior immunosuppression. Expected events for a trial of this size and duration: ~4.9. Observed: 6. P(≥6) = 37%. The total count is barely above expectation. All cancers. Same logic applies to all 8 cancer cases (7 drug, 1 placebo). Under Binomial(8, 0.747), the most likely outcome is 6:2 at 31.1%. The observed 7:1 is the second most likely at 26.3%. P(≥7) = 36%. Caveat. This is a simplified model meant to illustrate the effect of differential treatment time on event allocation. It uses published epi parameters and standard binomial statistics. It does not prove obefazimod is safe — you can't prove a negative from 6 events — but the observed pattern is exactly what you'd expect from the trial design alone.

@BiomedicalRX @Andre_AGTC Fair enough.

Whether I do or not (no opinion), my post was simply a response that’s it’s BS that any counter opinion gets treated as personal affront. I also, like many on here have likely been burned when hype and groupthink enter the equation. No causation obviously but something to consider.

$ABVX I was challenged by Adam. Here is my response $ABVX peak rev per Stifel is 3.3B >Obe is approvable due to good efficacy and oral convenience >Potential ADCOM and warning in the label similar to JAKs >Launch slower due to highly competitive field but to progress well

@BiomedicalRX @Andre_AGTC You honestly think this gets a black box?

How dare you give insight about $ABVX that does not fit the 💯 bull agenda! Great data thus far but in my experience doesn’t always end well when the cult vibe kicks in. When the same message needs to be stated daily and the army attacks any counter narrative it’s a 🚩. Neutral here but BS that you are taking heat simply since you aren’t “falling in line”. At a minimum, people should appreciate hearing an opinion that makes them investigate their conviction further vs being attacked.

@Andre_AGTC A swing and a miss!