Expert Interview
Comparing 89bio's ENLIVEN data (pegozafermin) to Akero's efruxifermin in NASH
Ticker(s): ETNB, AKRO, MDGL, ICPTInstitution: Imperial College London
- Consultant Hepatologist at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, and Honorary Senior Lecturer at Imperial College London.
- Leads the NAFLD service in the Trust, overseeing a clinic that cares for more than 600 patients.
- Research interests are focused in translational aspects of NAFLD care, including prediction of cardiovascular risk, quantitation of liver biopsies from NAFLD patients using machine learning, and management of NAFLD cirrhosis.
What are your thoughts on pegozafermin's ph.II ENLIVEN data ?
Added By: kennyFibrosis improvement in placebo (7%) was the lowest compared to historical ph.II trials (15%+). Co used a 3-panel cons. read with stringent scoring criteria (similar to ICPT's REGENERATE).
- Do you believe this PBO is realistic and reflective of real-world histology read?
Both AKRO and ETNB had 20% fibrosis improvement, but AKRO's PBO and efruxifermin results were numerically higher (20% PBO vs 41% EFX, and 7% vs 27% PEGZO).
- How do u make sense of these differences? Should 20% delta be viewed similar? Or do you view efruxfermin's numerically higher 41% as more favorable , despite both at 20% delta?
Added By: kenny
What are your thoughts on NASH improvement and why do you think pegzogafermin's effect size was lower compared to efruxifermin? (24% delta in 44mg PEGZO vs. 61% EFX 50mg).
co cites ballooning histology read variability caused lower results
What are your thoughts on the non-invasive biomarkers shown (Fibroscan, liver enzymes, pro-C3) and the correlation to NASH & fibrosis results? Does any marker stand out?
- How do you make sense of the differences between objective and subjective measures? Dose it imply pegzogafermin's fibrosis response is driven by favorable pathology readers, vs. actual drug effect?
- Do you believe pegzogafermin ph.II results are reproducible in ph.III?
- Do you believe efruxfermin is a more potent FGF21 given deeper effect size in NASH and objective markers , despite similar fibrosis improvement?
Added By: kenny
Thinking about the FGF21 MOA and how it works biologically, shouldn't NASH resolution be much higher than fibrosis improvement? For example, EFX had a much higher 3x NASH resolution of 61% delta vs 20% delta in fibrosis. This higher NASH improvement vs fibrosis improvement is also seen in previous NASH trials.
- However, pegzogafermin's NASH vs fibrosis improvement was very similar, almost 1:1 (24% NASH vs 20% fibrosis delta). How do you make sense of this?
- Does lower NASH efficacy vs efruxfermin imply FGF21a,1b,1c receptor differences? Both compounds have nM potency.
Added By: kenny
Weight loss
- pegozafermin did not show weightloss vs. efruxifermin. Do you believe this is due to drug differences, or patient selection? What are the clinical implications? (eg. better F4 outcomes in lean muscle mass preservation)
Added By: kenny
How would you sum up Pegzogafermin vs efruxfermin's product profile?
- Would pegzogafermin's better safety (lower GI tox, no tremors), comparable fibrosis efficacy, and more flexible Q2W dose a good assessment?
- Assuming efrixfermin, resmetirom and pegzogafermin all get approved, how do you see them being used?
Added By: kenny
Are You Interested In These Questions?
Slingshot Insights Explained
Expert research benefits investors by giving them timely access to unbiased real world perspectives on highly specialized topics. Slingshot Insights' crowdfunded model makes this access available at a fraction of the cost of other expert networks.
Reason
*Slingshot Insights provides access to information, not investment advice. We work to support you and facilitate access to experts; however we are not responsible for monitoring calls for the disclosure of MNPI. You should obtain financial, legal and tax advice from your qualified and licensed advisers before deciding to invest in any security.
