The ChonDRAgon was looking at a DR5 agonist, ozekibart, and that studying sort of efficacy-wise showed prolonged progression-free survival compared to placebo. I think what was really interesting in the secondary endpoints that they looked at, one, you know, they evaluated PFS and response compared from the central reviewers and investigator assessment and was the same, which I think is always finding that concordance is very comforting to know that the data is real and there’s not a bias in one, particularly on investigator’s side...
The ChonDRAgon was looking at a DR5 agonist, ozekibart, and that studying sort of efficacy-wise showed prolonged progression-free survival compared to placebo. I think what was really interesting in the secondary endpoints that they looked at, one, you know, they evaluated PFS and response compared from the central reviewers and investigator assessment and was the same, which I think is always finding that concordance is very comforting to know that the data is real and there’s not a bias in one, particularly on investigator’s side. I think the other thing that was noted and shown was that the agent, while it didn’t lead to a lot of responses and their, you know, chondrosarcoma is a very challenging disease to take care of, we did see a decrease in the, or let me just say, put it in the other way, a prolonged time until deterioration in terms of function and pain. I think in looking at the data, what struck me was that there seemed to be a group of patients who very quickly had deterioration both on the placebo arm in the study as well as on the investigational arm. And then the curves changed in the ozekibart arm had really sort of prolonged symptom management and lack of deterioration, which was different from placebo. And so it really speaks to, is there a group of patients who really progressed too fast for this agent to be helpful? And how can we identify those patients?
This transcript is AI-generated. While we strive for accuracy, please verify this copy with the video.
