<
PROSTVAC was developed by Therion. BN was a partner. The phase-2 trial above was started by Therion. When it failed its primary endpoint, TTP, Therion ran out of money and shut down. BN got all their intellectual properties for cheap including the phase-2 trial.
The median survival benefit of 8.5 months that they are now claiming for the phase-2 trial must be looked at with some skepticism.>
The above review of the phase-2 ProstVac trial from Dr. Small and Dr. Fong in the Journal of Clinical Oncology just showed up in my email. The two researchers pointed out a number of issues with the ProstVac trial including what I said in the previous post.
People who constantly gripe about any researcher with any slight negative comments on the Provenge trials should try to put your feet in the shoes of investors in Bavarian Nordic while reading the above article. Would you then accuse Small and Fong of conflicting interests because they work with Provenge, a competing product of ProstVac? Or, is this just a normal practice in the field where researchers routinely comment and review on work of their peers?
These comments are common in every field of science. Without pointing out weaknesses in data, there will be no progress. So, next time you hear from a Kantoff saying that a trial like D9901 was too small or a Small saying that a trial like the ProstVac one was not adequate, know that they know what they are talking about and pay attention instead of vilifying them.
