Sep. 4 at 11:19 PM
$CRSP i called that the pelacarsen trial was gonna flop- lowering lpa after symptomatic ascvd has already developed is not the right strategy, it’s a lifelong risk factor that needs to be targeted early in life, which of course still needs to be proven. or perhaps it’s more complicated than that. but we know through prospective studies that high lpa independently increases heart disease risk, so that correlation cant be ignored. it also makes it a more complicated decision for CRISPR: do they reprioritize safer bets or do they take a gamble on a highly correlative and logical speculation? then come questions, how long does the trial need to be and is it worth the financial and opportunity cost? what age group will lowering lpa actually show a clinical difference? Lilly and Arrowhead/Amgen have ongoing phase 3 trials with similar eligibility and endpoints, will be interesting to see if it’s an Lpa post ASCVD fail or ASO vs siRNA
