Chimerix, Inc. (NASDAQ:CMRX) Q2 2022 Earnings Conference Call August 8, 2022 4:30 PM ET
Company Participants
Michelle LaSpaluto – Vice President-Strategic Planning and Investor Relations
Mike Sherman – President and Chief Executive Officer
Allen Melemed – Chief Medical Officer
Mike Andriole – Chief Financial and Business Officer
Randall Lanier – Chief Science Officer
Josh Allen – Chief Technology Officer-Imipridones
Conference Call Participants
Maury Raycroft – Jefferies
Joseph Thome – Cowen
Ed White – H.C. Wainwright
Soumit Roy – Jones Research
Operator
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Chimerix Second Quarter 2022 Earnings Conference Call. I would now like to introduce you to your host for today’s call, Michelle LaSpaluto, Vice President of Strategic Planning and Investor Relations at Chimerix. Please proceed.
Michelle LaSpaluto
Thank you and good morning everyone. This afternoon we issue a press release on our second quarter operating update. You can access this press release in our Investors section of the website. With me on today’s call, our President and Chief Executive Officer, Mike Sherman; Chief Medical Officer, Allen Melemed; Chief Financial and Business Officer, Mike Andriole; Chief Science Officer, Randall Lanier; and our Chief Technology Officer of Imipridones, Josh Allen.
Before we begin, I would like to remind you that the statements made on today’s call include forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and are subject to risks and uncertainties, and other factors. These risks and uncertainties and other factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those referred to in the forward-looking statements. Please refer to our filings with the SEC for a more complete disclosure of these risks and uncertainties.
At this time, I would like to turn the call over to our President and Chief Executive Officer, Mike Sherman.
Mike Sherman
Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for joining us today. We’ve been busy the past few months, so let me get right to the details of the progress we’ve made and I’ll start with TEMBEXA. In July, we marked a significant milestone recording our first TEMBEXA product revenue covered by two international agreements of $35 million in aggregate. This was only possible because we made the decision a couple of years ago to manufacture over 300,000 treatment courses of TEMBEXA at our own risk without a contract, somewhat atypical and biodefense space. Because of that decision, we were able to take advantage of this opportunity immediately completing contracts and shipping products in a matter of days. If you’re looking to isolate and assess Chimerix’s execution as it relates to creating and delivering on contracts, these are great examples. The same decision to manufacture product at risk will also position us to respond immediately to place TEMBEXA into the U.S. stockpile once the BARDA agreement is in place.
We mentioned previously that the monkeypox outbreak introduced some new considerations for both BARDA and Chimerix, so we are and have been thoughtful to address those urgently. In the meantime, the international sales we’ve recorded have satisfied our near-term capital needs. You may be aware that while TEMBEXA was approved for smallpox, preclinical data does support the activity of TEMBEXA against multiple orthopoxviruses including monkeypox. The FDA commented on that potential in their post-approval manuscript. The fact of the matter is no randomized control studies have been performed in humans with monkeypox with either of the FDA approved antivirals for smallpox. And there are still a lot of unknowns as the virus spreads and mutates into potentially more resistant strains. We’re working with leading infectious disease physicians on potential options to generate additional data.
Let me now turn to ONC201, pleased to announce today the design details of our Phase 3 action study of ONC201. This is the most advanced study in this H3 K27M population of patients. I’ll let Allen go into the design details, but let me make a few points upfront. We’ve worked with KOLs across disciplines and geographies to design a trial with a probability of success that’s high and multiple ways to achieve this efficiently. The action study is highly differentiated from the other Phase 3 studies that have been performed in the broader glioblastoma space. It really comes down to the Phase 2 data we have in hand and the circumstance in which it was generated compared to other drugs that really differentiate this drug’s likelihood of success.
I should first note that about a third of the studies in this space advance to Phase 3 without Phase 2 data. For those that did advance based on Phase 2 data, it was rare that the patient population was associated with a targeted genetically specified mutation like H3 K27M. With that target, we can focus on the same homogeneous population of patients in Phase 3 that were the source of the data in Phase 2. We can also identify those patients with the same tools used in Phase 2, which are reliable diagnostic methods already nearly universally used.
The isolation of single agent activity is also critical. Many previous Phase 2 studies have been conducted with drug combinations or have failed to have adequate washout periods to distinguish drug effects. They then relied on time point endpoints like PFS compared to historical benchmarks. And in contrast, we’ve carefully isolated the single agent activity of ONC201 in our Phase 2 data. Importantly, we’ve measured tumor response using RANO criteria, the most rigorous standard. This method was developed to address some of the short company – shortcomings of prior response rate measures such as 11 and MacDonald criteria.
Our overall response rate of 20% to 30% in the relapse setting using RANO complimented by the durability of those responses evaluated by blinded independent central review also increased our confidence relative to prior studies done using less stringent criteria. It’s also critically important that our efficacy data was generated in the absence of anti-angiogenic drugs like Avastin, which can confound imaging and yield false response and progression assessments, which have historically failed to translate to Phase 3 success for other drugs. And finally, the consistency across multiple clinically meaningful endpoints is particularly convincing. The ONC201 data demonstrates a clear association between response and a reduction in steroid use and an improvement in performance status.
There’s also an association with survival as all responders were alive at two years or were alive at the data lock if that was earlier than two years for patients who did not achieve a response none were alive at two years. The internal consistency of this data is striking. We previously noted the ongoing work related to compiling safety data to strengthen the risk benefit assessment of ONC201. Last fall we reported just a summary of safety data from the 50 patient efficacy cohorts. I’m now happy to say we’ve completed a more robust assessment of over 200 patients and the results reveal a very attractive safety profile as expected.
I’ll turn the call over to Allen to share more about the details of the Phase 3 action study, as well as hit on those findings in the latest safety assessment. Allen?
Allen Melemed
Thank you, Mike. I’m excited to briefly go over the details of our actions in Phase 3 study. We’re expecting to activate select U.S. sites later this year and continue into international sites throughout the first half of next year. ACTION is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled and multicenter study and newly diagnosed diffuse glioma patients whose tumor harbors an H3 K27M mutation. Treatment with ONC201 will occur following completion of radiation therapy. The study will enroll approximately 450 patients, who will be randomized to receive 625 milligram of ONC201 had one of two dosing frequencies once or twice weekly or placebo.
The primary endpoint of the study is overall survival. The study will also evaluate progression-free survival with an alpha control for both OS and PFS. OS will be assessed for efficacy at three alpha controlled time points: two interim assessments by the Independent Data Monitoring Committee followed by final assessment. The final PFS analysis will be performed using RANO HGG by blinded independent central review. Participants in the study must have a Karnofsky or Lansky performance status, which is a measure of patients’ ability to perform ordinary tasks, of greater than or equal to 70 at time of randomization.
Key inclusion criteria are the presence of a primary spinal tumor diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma evidence of left a mental spread of disease or cerebral spinal fluid dissemination.
The sighting will take place at up to 120 sites in North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. The first interim analysis anticipated nearly 2025 with finite data in 2026. The study has greater than an 80% power with an assumed hazard ratio of 0.65 for overall survival and 0.60 for progression free survival.
Independent comparison would perform for each on to one study group versus control at each time point. The study design builds on findings in the Phase 2 data that should increase the likelihood that patients will respond on to one. These factors include moving to an earlier line likely including patients with less bulk disease increasing the time for patients being on [indiscernible] as well as limiting the study to patients with the KPS of greater and equal to 70. All of these factors were associated with better response in the Phase 2 data set.
In addition, the study design has a number of elements, which should support wrap enrollment. This includes a wider time render to identify patients as there’s a natural six-week gap between initial diagnosis and completion of radiation therapy. The presence of an H3 K27M mutation will be identified as part of the standard of care at the time an initial diagnosis with widely available tests.
In addition, patients are twice as likely received on to one of a placebo. We receive excitement from numerous KOLs globally to participate in this study. Lastly, we’ve been keenly listening as FDA guidance and expectations for oncology development programs are evolving, in addition to an increased push towards randomized clinical trials or registration, FDA has pushed further our recent on multiple dose and target indications, which is included discussions with Chimerix.
Noting that ONC201 efficacy was mainly based in the single dose and schedule, we incorporated an additional dose in the Phase 2 study with the upside of increasing study enthusiasm and probability of a successful study. This additional schedule has been well tolerated in previous ONC201 trials.
In the meantime, we’ve been updating our ONC201 safety data analysis that includes a robust safety analysis performed at 211 patients. With this new safety data added to that of the efficacy data we’ve already reported, we now have a better characterization of this risk benefit of this drug.
In this analysis, treatment emergent, adverse events that were drug related were generally Grade 1 and 2. Most common events were headache, fatigue, nausea and vomiting. The only related adverse event of Grade 3 or higher that occurred in more than 2% of patients fatigue [ph] reported at 2.8%.
Adverse events reported in the pediatric population were generally similar to those reported in adults. Only five patients 2.4% experienced a the treatment related adverse event leading to study drug discontinuation reduction or interruption. These events were neutropenia in three patients, hypersensitivity in one patient, neutrophil counts this decreased in one patient and pulmonary embolism in one patient.
With this – with A Phase 3 trial soon underway. And this data in hand, we plan to revisit the questions of accelerate approval based on the Phase 2 date with FDA in the fourth quarter of this year.
With that, I turn over to Mike Andriole to speak to our financial results.
Mike Andriole
Thanks, Allen, and good afternoon, everyone. With Allen’s overview of the action study and rationale for why we’re optimistic about its outcome, I wanted to just make a few comments on the potential commercial market for ONC201. As most of you are aware diffuse gliomas are a particularly lethal form of brain cancer and H3 K27M-mutants are among the worst of what is already a poor prognosis. The unmet need for new therapies in glioma broadly and H3 K27M-mutants in particular is among the highest unmet needs in all of oncology.
As it relates to ONC201, our market research indicates that the unaided awareness of this agent for H3 K27M-mutants is already high. And following the participation in the ACTION study of up to 120 sites across the major markets. We expect the association of this agent to H3 K27M-mutations will be nearly ubiquitous among top prescribing neuro oncologists.
If the ACTION study is successful, we expect this awareness will translate to rapid adoption of the therapy in major markets. This likely adoption should be aided by a competitive landscape that is quite attractive. Specifically, we’re not aware of any other Phase 2 or Phase 3 programs in the industry targeting this mutation. These dynamics likely make ONC201 unique in a market where there have been several examples of underperforming commercial launches in oncology in recent years.
Consequently, we’ve viewed the commercial risk here as relatively low and continue to view this as a worldwide annual revenue opportunity that should comfortably exceed $500 million. As Mike mentioned earlier this past July, we announced two international TEMBEXA procurement contracts, totally nearly $35 million. We’ve delivered nearly all of that product recently, and we’ll realize at least $32 million of revenue in the third quarter.
On a pro forma basis, cash at the end of June would have been approximately $70 million when including this additional revenue. As it relates to the pending transaction for the sale of TEMBEXA to Emergent in late July, the HSR waiting period expired that satisfied one of the key closing conditions.
The other two remaining key closing conditions are execution of the procurement contract with BARDA and BARDA’s approval of a pre-novation agreement between Chimerix and Emergent. I know that investors are eager to have a BARDA contract executed as are we. Certainly, the recent declaration of the monkeybox outbreak as a public health emergency by both the WHO and HHS has influenced how both parties are approaching the final details of this agreement.
To that end, we will work expeditiously with our counterparts at BARDA to finalize the contract as soon as reasonably possible. In the interim, we continue to operate the business in the ordinary course and will provide another update to the market on the finalization of the BARDA agreement when we can. With our current cash position in addition to the expected cash generated from the sale of TEMBEXA, Chimerix expects to be well positioned to advance the ACTION study and other pipeline programs without concern of the near term diluted financing.
Now moving to our statement of operations. The company reported a net loss of $23.5 million or $0.27 per basic and diluted share for the second quarter of 2022 compared with a net loss of $17.8 million or $0.21 per basic and diluted share in the second quarter of 2021.
Research and development expenses increased to $18 million for the second quarter of 2022, compared to $13.8 million for the same period in 2021. The main driver of this increase is the ongoing development related to ONC201.
General and administrative expenses increased to $5.8 million for the second quarter of 2022, compared to $4.4 million for the same period in 2021.
And with that overview, I’ll now turn the call back to Mike Sherman for closing remarks. Mike?
Mike Sherman
Thanks, Mike. Before I open it up for questions, I’d like to take a minute to welcome Christopher Jordan to the team as our Vice President of Regulatory Affairs. Christopher comes to us with over 30 years of pharma experience across all stages of product development. Some of our management team have had the pleasure of working with Christopher at endo site and Novartis, where he recently led the regulatory strategy and execution of the FDA approval and EMA submission of PSMA-617 or Pluvicto as it’s now known. His knowledge in the oncology field and track record of navigating complicated regulatory processes will be a great addition to the team as we continue the development of our oncology pipeline.
With that Brianna, I’ll turn it over to you, do open the call for questions.
Question-and-Answer Session
Operator
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Your first question will come from Maury Raycroft with Jefferies. Your line is now open.
Maury Raycroft
Hi, thanks for taking my questions and congrats on getting the Phase 3 design. For the Phase 3, you have two interim OS assessments by independent data monitoring committee at 164 events and then 246 events, and then the final at 327 events. If successful, could either of the initial interim assessments at 164 or 246 be enough to file for approval?
Mike Sherman
Yes, those are designed such that with statistical significance at those endpoints you’ve got – you’ll have PFS in hand, response rate data in hand and overall survival with – at those early endpoints pretty significant advantages. We would expect those to be the basis of a regulatory submission and approval.
Maury Raycroft
Got it. And then also can you talk more about the twice a week dosing and what you’ve seen in prior clinical data that supports the rationale for moving the twice per week dosing into the Phase 3?
Mike Sherman
Yes. I may just turn that directly over to Allen and Josh to share both the rationale for including it as well as some of the experience we’ve had with it in prior trials.
Allen Melemed
Yes, this is Allen. I’ll start. We have evaluated twice weekly dosing and have been shown that this has been an effect a safe regimen in several studies. One of the reasons we want to move this forward is we wanted to have the opportunity to have even a more intense dose. We know that we want to try to maximize the effect we’ve seen and we really haven’t seen any challenge so far with safety from the current dosing regimen. This also is addressed in part, but what you’ve seen from the FDA regarding optimization of dose and we think that this helps also address the situation where you do have two shots on goal, and essentially you have two places for a patient to get on study with ONC201 and [indiscernible] I’ll pass it on to Josh for additional comments.
Josh Allen
Sure. This is just speaking to the rationale really comes from preclinical in vitro findings, showing that the efficacy of ONC201 can be increased with prolonged exposure to the same concentration and a little bit of a sweet spot towards 48 hours with an incubation time, really leading to that maximal effect. So the thinking is that we’re getting into these brain tumors with a current dose achieving therapeutic concentrations. And if we can just prolong that duration for an extra day by giving a second dose on a consecutive day there, that might be the key to unlocking an increase in efficacy based on those models. So that in combination with the safety experience in the clinic that Allen spoke to is what leads us to incorporate that.
Maury Raycroft
Got it…
Mike Sherman
I’ll add one other thing, Maury. The notion that – that to encourage an enrollment in this trial, you would need to go to a 2:1 randomization anyway, if it were a single schedule. And so, you kind of get that 2:1 benefit here with just a little bit higher and in aggregate. So it’s I think a good use of the statistical power in order to get another shot on goal for success and still encourage patients to enroll.
Maury Raycroft
Got it. Yes, that’s all helpful. And maybe last question for me, just wondering if in communications with FDA if – if they communicated on whether an accelerated approval path based on the Phase 2 data and additional supporting data, if that’s still on the table.
Mike Sherman
Yes. We – as we discussed at our last call, we essentially delayed that conversation after their feedback this – earlier this spring with a focus on getting moving with the Phase 3 trial and knowing that without this additional safety data in hand we were a little bit limited in our ability to make a strong case for the risk benefit assessment. So now that we have this additional safety dataset, which really plays out exactly as we expected, we’ll be able to go back to them. So, in the meantime, we really haven’t pushed that conversation beyond the Phase 3 trial. We’ll revisit that here later this year.
Maury Raycroft
Got it. Okay. Thanks for taking my questions.
Mike Sherman
Thanks, Maury.
Operator
Your next question comes from Joseph Thome with Cowen. Your line is now open.
Joseph Thome
Hi, there. Good afternoon and thank you for taking our questions. Maybe the first one just on ONC201 with the Phase 3, you’re administrating shortly after completion of radiation. Is there a timeframe that’s mandated in the study? And maybe can you compare this to the timeframe post-radiation that patients saw ONC201 in the Phase 2 analysis population? That would be helpful.
Mike Sherman
Sure. I’ll let Allen answer that one.
Allen Melemed
So there is a couple ways you’re looking at this. One of the reasons we’ve done this way, we’re allowing patients to start the screening process when they’re initially diagnosed and then starting the radiation therapy. So you have plenty of time where you can actually grab the patient. There is a specific timeframe, which you should be randomized, which I believe and ask Josh to correct this, they get six to eight weeks post radiation, I’m sorry, not post radiation, post initial diagnosis, but I want Josh to clarify the exact time. I don’t have that in my – front of me.
Josh Allen
Yes, sure. We’ll enroll in the range of two to six weeks post-radiations for this study. And that contrasts to the prior efficacy analysis and the relapse setting was more than three months, that washout period there. So this study is substantially moving patients up closer to radiotherapy, which we think will give them a better shot at having prolonged duration of therapy and perhaps better response.
Joseph Thome
Okay, perfect. Thank you. And then maybe jumping over to TEMBEXA is there a time limit associated with the EBS deal closing on when the BARDA contract needs to be finalized, like does that have to be a 2022 event? And then second part of that should we anticipate any substantial additional ex-U.S. revenues going forward or have you kind of hit the key markets? Thank you very much.
Mike Sherman
I’ll let Mike hit those two questions.
Mike Andriole
Yes, there’s an outside date in that agreement. That’s available there for both parties, Joe. It’s September 30th in that agreement. And then as it relates to the international opportunity, we continue to have discussions with parties internationally. I think the declaration of the public health emergencies certainly by the WHO is continues to sort of activate interest in those conversations. So the contracts that we entered into at the end of June were certainly ones that we were able to turn around very quickly. We’ll continue to have those conversations in the weeks ahead.
Joseph Thome
Perfect. Thank you very much.
Operator
Your next question comes from Ed White with H.C. Wainwright. Your line is now open.
Ed White
Good evening. Thanks for taking my questions. Just circling back to – the potential for accelerated approval, have you set a meeting date with the FDA yet regarding accelerated approval? And does using the two different dosing schedules in the Phase 3 study, somewhat tamper the expectations for accelerated approval?
Mike Sherman
Yes, I’ll let others add to this. We’re preparing the materials that would be the basis for that meeting now as the safety dataset is just – has just been completed. I would suggest that having that study in place and up and running and really well advanced at the time an action from the regulators would be taken on an accelerated approval is a big part of what the FDA wants and needs to see in considering an accelerated approval. So I think that would actually provide some comfort. If we were exploring lower doses, I think that could be potentially problematic in their review, but because we’re actually exploring the potential of a more efficacious higher dose that obviously if it’s not more effective or it’s insufficient safety then that would not impact an accelerated approval relative to the lower dose.
It actually also simplifies some potential commercial issues that might arise your – lowering your dose from an accelerated approval regimen. So I don’t think it impacts in a negative way, their consideration in fact I think having a robust design with certainty around having overall survival to confirm a full approval really was going to be required anyway. And this just gets them a much more robust assessment of that and frankly consistent with their guidance as it relates to – for dose optimization that I think would be supportive of that conversation.
Allen Melemed
Hi, Mike. Can I add here? This is Allen. I think part of this goes back into the feedback we have received and actually approval [ph] received from the FDA years back. So dose optimization really wasn’t in the situation back then things have evolved in FDA. So again, if you go according to what they’ve said, dose optimization is often more focused on the Phase 3 aspect of that. So I do think, I agree with Mike that we have still have the reasons to discuss it. This is also very high unmet need population with significant need.
Ed White
Okay, thanks. And then just on TEMBEXA regarding monkeypox, have you been approached by any government outside the U.S. regarding potential purchases due to monkeypox and perhaps if you could just review in a little bit more detail, the preclinical data for monkeypox and your thoughts on either you or Emergent pursuing studies in monkeypox?
Mike Sherman
Maybe I’ll – I think add as it relates to the conversations with the parties outside the U.S. Those were likely accelerated as a result of monkeypox, although maybe never directly referenced in that context, given the approval in smallpox. As Mike said, those conversations are ongoing. Maybe I’ll turn it over to Randall, just to make a couple of comments knowing that there are a lot of unknowns in terms of the treatments for monkeypox, there is some pretty compelling basis to believe that TEMBEXA be an active and safe agent for use in this population.
Randall Lanier
Sure. Mike, so I’ll start, I guess, with in vitro and just say that monkeypox is the second most sensitive orthopoxvirus we’ve ever tested. It’s about twice as sensitive to TEMBEXA as variola, about four times more sensitive than the mousepox virus that we use for approval and about 14 times more sensitive than the rabbitpox virus that we use for approval. So from an in vitro standpoint, there’s every reason to believe that monkeypox would be highly responsive to TEMBEXA. We also have two animal models. One of them in mice, which showed a 100% protection from monkeypox virus infection with TEMBEXA, and then one in a prairie dogs where it was sort of intermediate protection, but it turned out that prairie dogs like monkeys actually novelize [ph] TEMBEXA much faster. So the exposure within Prairie dogs of TEMBEXA is about 15% that of human.
And that’s the reason that we saw kind of intermediate responses there. With respect to humans, obviously, there’s the published cases of three monkeypox virus cases in the UK where all three patients responded very well to TEMBEXA and the paper was actually fairly negative on the drug for reasons that we don’t fully understand. But the patients receiving TEMBEXA did all fully recover. There was clear virologic effects. They did have transient ALT elevations that were – that caused TEMBEXA to be discontinued. But the patients all responded fully.
And I should just add that with regard to the ALT elevations, the manuscript ignored all of the FDA data, which was instead of three patients was 392 TEMBEXA recipients versus 208 placebo recipients where the ALT elevations were 7% in the TEMBEXA arm and 5% in the placebo arm. So all of the data suggests that this drug should work quite well for monkeypox.
Ed White
Okay, great. Thanks for taking my questions.
Randall Lanier
Thanks, Ed.
Operator
Your next question comes from Soumit Roy with Jones Research. Your line is now open.
Soumit Roy
Hi, everyone, and congratulations on all the progress. A good question on the ACTION trial, possibly Allen, if you can remind us from the relapsed/refractory glioma Phase 2, what were the immediate prior line or treatment regimen for those patients? Was it mostly radiation and or also the temozolomide chemo and the second days on ACTION, would’ve been better to have a physician’s choice as a control arm rather than a placebo just any thoughts?
Allen Melemed
Yes. So I’m going to the first go to the choice of the control arm. And I think it’s important to note in the control in the Phase 3 trial post radiation therapy, there really is no standard of care. Patients typically receive the radiation therapy and then they wait until progressive disease. So this is an ideal time to study this. It also builds on some of the factors we saw on the Phase 2 trial that we think will actually increase the probability of the success. Typically in this setting, you’re going to have a little smaller disease. You’re going to be on therapy longer, and we are going to include the lower KPS score and then include in the 60s. So we do think these factors increase our probability of technical success in this population. I’m going to ask Josh to kind of go through what he found in the prior, since he was the one who was initially doing these trials from the Phase 2 studies. Josh?
Josh Allen
Hi. Yes. With regards to the prior therapies and that recurring experience, obviously all of these patients have radiation recurred and waited more than 90 days as I noted on earlier comments. In terms of additional therapies, these patients saw prior to getting ONC201 tended particularly in the adult population to include temozolomide. Even though that chemotherapy is known to not have benefit within subsets of H3 K27M-mutant glioma, and we still saw exposure to that, just given the paucity of other agents. Other therapies included bevacizumab for symptomatic relief of edema in addition to [indiscernible]. So really just a mixture of chemotherapy. And we’re hopeful that we’ve been earlier, as we’ve noted a couple times here, we’ve been earlier in line therapy prior to exposure to those chemotherapies will increase the likelihood of our patients benefit [indiscernible].
Soumit Roy
Got it. Thank you for that. And one last question on ONC206, just curious on the timeline what are you thinking of to bring this drug pre-IND or in the clinic?
Mike Sherman
Yes, we mentioned that drug has been evaluated in two studies, one of a pediatric and another on the adult. The adult study is being sponsored by the NIH and to be fair our focus has really been on accelerating ONC201. And so we are escalating that dose through that program, I would expect to be able to get into sort of the therapeutic window here into next year. But we’ll report separately as we get closer to what we expect would be a data readout on that end of selection for an indication that we would pursue that.
One of the things we’ve talked about in the past is that even though there’s the targets for ONC206 are the same as ONC201 that drug opens up different opportunities in terms of development within oncology. And so we would expect to pursue certain non-overlapping indications initially with ONC201.
Soumit Roy
Got it. Thank you so much for taking the question.
Mike Sherman
Thank you.
Operator
There are no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call back over to Mike Sherman.
Mike Sherman
Thanks, Brianna. And thanks again, everyone for joining the call. We look forward to the next updates, particularly on the progress of the BARDA contract. Thank you. Have a good evening.
Operator
This concludes today’s conference call. You may now disconnect.
Be the first to comment