Dr. John Scarlett
at abstracts. presentations the imetelstat this the dates oral our that’s In ASH the ASH Thanks, Olivia. available our comments on both release call going This in we press important to to morning on be the from policies for and information the compliance a contained at on time in and data presentation of has the upcoming website. announced ASH. within More mature included data limited is trials
relapsed/refractory this Within these, the which in from potential to the IMbark MF some observations development survival I would overall population. explore about highlight us like to of future abstract, first encourage imetelstat
a imetelstat a is doses treatment As patients two MF. with in intermediate of starting trial reminder, risk IMbark of Phase high X to
study IMbark population were has of and/or relapsed/refractory a important for only data current JAK patient patients refractory because All very MF consider them proved and is inhibitor. that’s considered who salvage met for therapies We survival this unapproved effective. rigorous reported subjective relapsed therapies are being inhibitors. to no this JAK criteria the not
reported follow-up the For with consists follow-up and ruxolitinib, with year rate adverse long-term during as of serious collection The COMFORT-I Data the long-term from phase the the status. the MF allow ongoing survival from treatment treated discontinuation to of and IMbark five events II studies. extension phase is patients patients. is and XX%
of increase we extension take update by call, the XX.X from last XXXX. Since with from or was of the data those We again. – on overall abstracts follow-up the reported already overall including Jansen follow-ups in the updated our primary Also I today median had endpoints call, spleens the discussed per survival. after analysis dosing was our patients from expect to survival median last a data kilogram been ASH phase the in we of the time reached at The an OS symptoms that final in in in yet a and review on months. quarter won’t second milligram X.X conference IMbark not data discussed the taken were longer-term primary on amount initiated of ASH
ASH the published, primary analysis we which the abstract that details Now has can discuss are been included other in from abstract. the
patients per X.X in XXX dosing XX IMbark, of X.X the were milligram XX per in a kilogram dosing and So in milligram enrolled kilogram arm. the arm a total
prior arm, for clinical XX.X%. been prior a In time XX and XX XX.X The from the OS months. median X.X was was imetelstat in identified. addition, of inhibitor abstract months. known XX% in safety safety the the for for JAK In to data the was our the the median cut imetelstat dosing imetelstat At ASH IMbark rate month patients signals time with of were have followed survival median the and malignancies profiles was consistent on trials heme
ruxolitinib, For abstract OS the the shown and to XX kilogram survival larger. reported These There after XX.X could the ASH – additional analysis been previously, With of data be milligram XX% milligram reported arm, of have center three claims, independent has X at meaningfully in XX need, we medical comments. on was were to potentially discontinuation included of dosing the or bear X.X as been third-party results that’s for not significant reached. differentiator believe median imetelstat address survival survival demonstrates per a unmet the dosing indicated arm per key that months. months observations failure kilogram rate three OS single imetelstat. in the median studies, databases and Based
post milligram separate when were allogeneic is, that interventions were patients kilogram have either or cell in not not due to arm from This been median the inhibitor kilogram with does milligram OS analysis to with be imetelstat appear per X.X indicates excluded subsequently First inhibitors X.X transplantation that JAK who for a analysis. or transplants. arm, per stem the the reached cell stem of still JAK treated sensitivity the OS improvement
have important increased the Triple negative arm have the been poor effect Triple an that’s the proliferation In XX% patients as dosing leukemic comprise unknown malignant that’s patients not or OS had XX.X triple associated reached overall the usually while classical risk for patients in X.X the and for transformation patients relates second CALR of MF. milligram or negative triple mutations. a unknown JAKX may in had therapy. not well patients is existing abstract, to respond activity of the observation of imetelstat molecular patients drivers target It specific patients and have with high MF. nipple command These of median have therapies. enrolled clones is hypothesize OS per not patient benefit current data do the non-triple with IMbark. using kilogram survival cut-off, that median or negative negative that these in that mutation that driving means any do The to on of that cell imetelstat of regenerative is to mutation are proliferation. negative a a regardless for an reason a months. because designed precise population unknown This mechanisms proliferative of driving also we abnormal such difficult through available of clones treat voices The imetelstat appears particularly this but to
ASH. additional the X.X extension median phase per the IMbark kilogram arms to of OS presented as population triple dosing as negative including expect from entire data the be milligram for at We well
AFXXX, such literature, significant relapsed IDHX with illustrates refractory prognosis of EVHX, patients The been the data risk molecular molecular explore high number genes third ill activity was. how believe We presence action to encourages certainly is observation high academic there have considered to was were mechanism the its who Imetelstat this of these and the as unique from population. SRSFX. molecular the us of the which one inferior of due have XX% that According such of the evaluation. genes in patients, in to associated imetelstat population X, mutation meaning patient further high at of were possibly patients potential at in and least risk risk worthy further IMbark Overall, or this
the IMbark it assessment with as historical to the the such overall of plan discussions commitment. data we regarding initiate the trial compares results expert As to from including survival
considered what study. would potential be X authorities We regulatory also a understand to outcomes in Phase their expectations plan meaningful of engage
regulatory future quarter MF outline of path expect to the in We population to this planning hope our and of in relapsed imetelstat’s to XXXX. we clinical discussions these guide and third the in the of able the imetelstat by forward strategy refractory patient end potential be
to turn let’s So, IMerge.
both As or enrolled, hypomethylating lenalidomide patients XX received XX either there original portion were with not increased in the also Phase target an this consecutive of or imetelstat compared did exhibited durability we’ve order trial at TI XX results for least to patient the of risk of the The for earlier have cell agent HMA XX from treatment benefit rate del(Xq) naïve were XX population, the total which was the to patients discussed had patient treatment not a patients. prior initial and IMerge, rate. abstract ASH population. represent cohort expansion and enrolled who a X of for previously, of the HMA expansion in cohort independence transfusion data red cohort of the eight confirm XX profile the rate The lenalidomide of overall for the weeks initial and year. The cohort abnormality. XX patients primary transfusion of combined in is IMerge patients week this eight endpoint non-del(Xq) blood chromosomal yet independence patient In and
past, clinical known was were As imetelstat prior trials and the safety in with the heme profile of safety malignancies consistent signals identified. reported and in
for on initial six conference expansion patients. enrolled abstract was activity cohorts burden blood the transfusion ring EPO IMerge. Similarly, range units sorry, to The RS ml. would XXX among serum per which eight both highlight units weeks X baseline compared planned range EPO in believe and burdens between response X the from So, previously – our weeks cohort. XX levels discussed the eight eight Also transfusion supports levels of for combined XX% portion be applicable rate eight week build a less of imetelstat lenalidomide. units lower portion or week than for This consistent eight response to rational similar or clinical XX% TI that rates positive in patients the in highlights TI compared week Phase for imetelstat TI available single-agent range that our The Phase risk for were represents included combined and an IMerge. cohort, than and with of last was HMAs It in units sideroblast the broadly that the in X XX% observed subtypes the for RS median expect negative to the a MDS. moving this higher data call, cohort. be to transfusion burden currently of rates red and RS The greater baseline abstract cell across with to the we patient cohort, to to suggest we patients patients may were – of
the I’d to like imetelstat there market is a XX,XXX MDS’s prevalence need Next discuss an for inadequate. substantial to and believe lenalidomide. be of unmet approximately risk both options is lower why lower patients risk sequenced ahead MDS is in large current treatment There U.S. are and for HMAs today. in opportunity MDS of There we a
incidence total the there the currently addition, estimated In XX,XXX We’ve a is on MDS market patient those decision It’s of quite each the that chromosomal patients that del(Xq) an newly focus lenalidomide the that population. for non-del(Xq) abnormality. represents lower XX% that XX% have to year. diagnosed of also approximately knowing effective of is approximately patients conscious MDS made risk is
which frequently MDS and/or lenalidomide and the of transfusion prior an IMerge much risk MDS that the risk initial about XX,XXX proceeding patient alternative with is cohorts of XX,XXX treatment. MDS believe could the and us second-line a they approximate of XX,XXX suggest patients the offer are We HMAs lower dependent when treatment, lenalidomide HMAs needed non-del presents patients results imetelstat by year. to lower this X of in portion population become majority to combined used. and time patients Phase A So each patients expansion the risk newly diagnosed reach lower target non-del(Xq)
to of risk observed earlier, similar in As XX% lenalidomide a MDS I patient and for the approximately X-week rate for rates previously XX% been imetelstat, much lower azacitidine or for population. reported mentioned XX% TI comparison in have lower HMA
to HMAs lenalidomide a clear believe lenalidomide and naïve sequenced expect ahead targeting we and as by to to path in such, X and Based treatment for plan, with for enrollment and know indication have potential a our we perspective today, first patient on of regulatory are our and risk we portion HMAs in forward we clinical and begin to pursue not mid-year first the we imetelstat according del(Xq) screening Phase As are a what risk or We imetelstat MDS the population XXXX. targeting of MDS. paradigm. lower who a lower from potentially current IMerge
complete, would to for for Assuming there, available X and IMerge, to Phase runs years FDA months or After XX of an within submission be estimate need the another mid-XXXX. European the believe that both MAA enrollment top-line take and portion and takes a around six follow-up, to get an nine Union approximately of months. to preparation it drug study approval. approximately results two sufficient approval from new would get EU we year months we application that From to the XX
With approximately timeline mid-year these the estimated first sponsorship to number transferred approval Phase In fully IND have ongoing back of trial. items of and including the X order by for portion Geron, clinical IMerge XXXX. of a to of XXXX, potential end is need to the assumptions, the we begin imetelstat’s
have and information, which contractual and filings. already regulatory databases, plans patient drug transition inventory biometrics manufacturing, also include commitments, pre-clinical begun, transferring Our
the of transition of XXXX. completed to end imetelstat the program by be quarter the expect the We entire third of
that continue closely to enrolled We in also patients both IMbark of are IMerge Jansen follow-up the without the treatment together interruption. all and with working studies currently ensure and
also additional call, for a affairs. operations, matter clinical We’ve in expertise of imetelstat development manufacturing trials. services biometrics, last as who back to experts the clinical to the engaged global subject conducting And conducting clinical regulatory resources science, quality future pharmacovigilance, involved imetelstat actively engaged we’ve active and is systems, As also in our our transition two program the as Geron. mentioned and have CRO well on global responsibilities the trials, of assume
restaff the our personnel started have internal we addition, of senior drug group. In hiring to of process a development number
data website. on In of supports novel with today, has future our compelling noticed drug summary, a the may that key You postings Geron new Career section development. have the
And through the enrollment A, our functions the to a We adding IMerge transition have forward portion plan move by are of Geron. including clinical cash selectively key rebuilding a we CRO, Phase and by to we as and of back the program the services, of X imetelstat commencing roles development mid-XXXX. imetelstat
we what encouraged Geron for have by loyal thoughtfully our could I’d us shareholders like through create to who the potential our very the are as As process. opportunities creating future advance been stakeholders. to clinical to also been thank imetelstat result, a we’ve long-term
So, with that, I would like to our now answer to your back questions and so, operator. let’s turn the call
