Connect
← Return to ARSI PR wars: Nubeqa (Bayer) vs Erleada (J & J) lawsuit
Discussion
ARSI PR wars: Nubeqa (Bayer) vs Erleada (J & J) lawsuit
Prostate Cancer | Last Active: Mar 4 5:17am | Replies (36)Comment receiving replies
It would seem to me that going back to the clinical trials data would be more productive than consideration of the litigation details,
There’s so much clinical data out there available for us to review ourselves. Here’s juts a few:
Replies to "It would seem to me that going back to the clinical trials data would be more..."
@brianjarvis AFAIK, there hasn't been a lot of head-to-head overall-survival comparison of the ARSIs (pulling numbers from different studies with different methodologies into the same table or website can be highly misleading), and there haven't been many real-world assessments comparing side-effects, either.
That's what's so interesting about the big retrospective study I shared earlier: it was limited to nmCRPC (probably because -lutamides other than Apalutamide hadn't been approved long enough for mCSPC to provide good samples), and while it found that Apalutamide produced the fewest de-novo central-nervous-system side-effects and Enzalutamide produced the most (with Darolutamide in the middle), they were all so close that it likely doesn't matter to patients, just to the marketing departments at Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and Bayer.
tl;dr All the -lutamides are good. Bayer's marketing may be feeding us 🐂💩 about Nubeqa's central-nervous system advantages over the others, while Johnson & Johnson's may be feeding us the same about Erleada's overall survival advantages. I suspect the only reason Pfizer's isn't joining in with Xtandi is that their U.S. Enzalutamide composition patent expires in 2027 anyway. 🤷
Connect
@brianjarvis
Interesting how the last chart shows Darolutamide Is more effective than the other three drugs as far as overall survival is concerned for Castrate sensitive people.