Either NKTR did a bad job explaining their results or we’ve just got a lot of bad journalism going on (maybe both). I see a lot of lazy articles written that state that as NKTR added patients to each of their studies, that the response rates dropped significantly and that this is a BAD thing.
Case in point from here: https://www.statnews.com/2018/06/03/asco-bristol-nektar-comb…
If anything, the presentation raised more doubts.
In a group of 13 melanoma patients, treatment with NKTR-214 and Opdivo demonstrated a impressive tumor response rate of 85 percent. That means 11 of the 13 patients responded.
But then the companies enrolled another 15 melanoma patients, and the response rate dropped. In the update, 14 of the now 28 treated patients (50 percent) showed significant tumor shrinkage. That means only three of the 15 added patients responded — a concerning drop in the efficacy of the NKTR-214-Opdivo combination.
As many on the board have pointed out, the response rate typically DEEPENS over time. So of course, when new people are added, we’d expect the response rates to drop. Significantly!
To his credit the author does state that
Bristol and Nektar defended the results, saying tumor responses are expected to get better over time. The patients enrolled later in the study have not been followed long enough, but when they are, the companies expect more tumors to shrink, boosting the response rates.
…I just wish he had made a much bigger point to focus on the above statement rather than all the time spent on worsening response rates which DONT account for time!
I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see the stock drop on Monday with all the controversial headlines then creep back up to normal levels as analysts realize there is no need for alarm over this.
-AJ