INF study From China, type of INF can matter

[EPguy]

Came across this one. frontiersin.org/articles/10...

It used "Peg-IFN-a-2b; PegBeron, Y shape, 40 kDa, Xiamen Amoytop Biotech, China" a type of Peg not familiar to most of us.

This is an alpha 2b type INF as is Besremi, (Pegasys is -2a)

It worked ok for blood counts, HR, but it's way less effective in MR than either Besremi or PEG if I read it right.

See chart here, upper left plot. MR is basically flat. Upper right, most got worse if I read it correctly. The familiar plot for Ropeg is very different, with dramatic reductions by year 2.

This suggests that INFs are not all equivalent for MPN at least regarding MR, and the differences could be real.

[Loooonglife]

Hi ET,Agree with your conclusions. The data are not very convincing. Too bad there isn’t a data set available that shows side by side comparison of what is looking like the best interferons, Pegasys and Besremi. Perhaps one day academic investigators will band up and get to the bottom of this question….. because Pegasys or Besremi sponsors will not. There is too much at stake (mostly for the Bestemi camp). In the meantime we’ll continue to read between the lines, which of course makes it much harder with coverage/reimbursement.

[EPguy in reply to Loooonglife]

There actually is comparable MR data, in my recent and earlier posts. It shows both PEG and Bes being clearly better than PegBeron for MR. The significance of MR and other parameters is a topic of these recent posts. One familiar data set is this image, for Besremi in Peginvera. Very different and better than the upper right plot in the top post, assuming they are comparable. There are others comparable to the upper left plot.

We can hope the latest INF, Bes, is the best one. Notably, the mfr is working on a next gen Bes, I suspect it changes some of the fine details in the molecule based on a report I saw.

PegInvera MR

[Manouche]

Hi ETguy,Thanks for sharing. Where did you see data at year 2 on this study ?

« molecular response was obtained in 38.5% of patients with PV and 50% of patients with ET after 48 weeks of Peg-IFN treatment »

[EPguy in reply to Manouche]

I got 2 year from Fig 3A in the Chinese report, seen at the top of this post. It's not in the text explicitly.

I realize there is a potential confounding element, Fig. 3A includes both ET and PV mixed together, but they also say <<no difference was found in molecular response between the two groups>>. This conflicts with Fig. 3C that shows an obvious difference.

I note now that Figs. 3B-D are consistent with each other, with quite undesirable MR increases. Only Fig. 3A, the line graph, shows fairly neutral results. But collectively these results are way inferior to PEG and Ropeg.

They also state <<No patients achieved CMR>>. Both PEG and Ropeg consistently get that for a certain number of patients. See report in the link here and bar chart above. And it's looking like getting CMR may be useful re progression, marrow as in my recent posts, with the usual qualifier "It's complicated".

For convenience, here is what I assume to be the comparable but superior plot for PEG vs Fig. 3A above , from my post discussing PEG vs Ropeg:

healthunlocked.com/mpnvoice...

2 years point INF MR

[gvibes]

Thank you. Increases our understanding.