Question · Q4 2025
Jesse Silvera asked if Anavex could discuss the reasons for the negative CHMP trending or re-evaluation strategy, sought more details on the biomarker data mentioned in the November 14th press release (specifically brain atrophy and its correlation to cognition), inquired about whether ABCLEAR1, ABCLEAR2, and ABCLEAR3 subpopulations were pre-specified or exploratory and their regulatory implications, questioned the relevance of Leqembi and Kisunla's approvals after CHMP re-examination, asked about the immediate refiling for EMA re-evaluation and a projected April timeline, and whether Anavex has community support for the re-evaluation.
Answer
President and CEO Christopher Missling confirmed that details on the negative CHMP trending and re-evaluation strategy cannot be discussed yet. He reiterated that objective biomarker endpoints, such as brain atrophy, are crucial, drawing an analogy to oncology. He noted that Blarcamesine demonstrated less or halted brain shrinking, which correlates with improved cognitive subdomains, and this data will be presented. He clarified that ABCLEAR1 (wild-type sigma-1 gene) was pre-specified based on Phase 2a findings (70% of the population), while ABCLEAR2 (Collagen 24A1 gene) was an unexpected finding from a pre-planned whole-genome exome analysis of Phase 2b/3, representing 71% of the population. He acknowledged that Lecanemab and Donanemab (Kisunla) underwent re-examination and received approval, emphasizing that benefit must outweigh risk, and Blarcamesine has a good safety profile (no ARIA) and efficacy, though he could not anticipate the outcome. He confirmed Anavex would immediately request re-examination and stated that while the community is aware, Anavex's focus is on presenting data and partnering with regulators.
Ask follow-up questions
Fintool can predict
AVXL's earnings beat/miss a week before the call