GLAXF - GSK plc (GSK) Citi's 18th Annual BioPharma Conference Transcript
2023-09-07 12:59:08 ET
GSK plc (GSK)
Citi's 18th Annual BioPharma Conference
September 07, 2023 08:50 A.M. ET
Company Participants
Phil Dormitzer - SVP, Head of Vaccines R&D
Conference Call Participants
Andrew Baum - Citi
Presentation
Andrew Baum
So delighted to introduce our next speakers from GSK, Phil Dormitzer. Phil is Senior Vice President, Head of Vaccines Research and Development. I got that more or less correct?
Phil Dormitzer
Yes. Yes.
Andrew Baum
Excellent. I've also got Jeff McLaughlin from GSK IR. So thank you for joining us today. Unsurprisingly, and Phil, be reassured, this conversation is going to be about vaccines. It would be a surprise if there was anything else.
Question-and-Answer Session
Q - Andrew Baum
Obviously, from a commercial point of view, GSK is in a very important point because you're just launching Arexvy now. And Shingrix has obviously been a great success. You've got supply ongoing. Maybe to kick off just into the future expansion of GSK's vaccines, we can talk about the Affinivax transaction you did and the MAPS technology.
Phil Dormitzer
Sure.
Andrew Baum
Now from the outside, there's obviously an arms race going on with the number of valences with strep pneumonia vaccines. And I've lost track of where we're up to. I know what you have, but I've had 30 valences and so on and so forth. Could you talk to the regulatory mind set and the ACIP mind set in differentiation between invasive and community acquired? And then separately, how -- for a surrogate endpoint, which is effectively what we're talking about, how neutralizations are tittered because this concept of interference as you increase the valences is something which has made by your competitors and there's a point of differentiation, tie those together and say, why the Affinivax is different, why does it uniquely enable you to achieve this lack of interference, the expansion of coverage, why is that expansion significant, and will that be recognized by the ACIP and FDA in their respective recommendations? Anyway, long, long question, lots of things in there.
Phil Dormitzer
Sure. Sure.
Andrew Baum
But it's a nice place to start.
Phil Dormitzer
Sure. So it is true, still at the levels of valences where we're achieving now that increasing serotype coverage really does increase the overall coverage of invasive disease. At some point, when you get into the -- well into the 30s, there may be a point of diminishing returns. But at the point where we are now, going from 13, 20, 24, 30 and 30-plus, you still really do get better coverage of existing disease out there. Now why the MAPS technology allows you to get to higher valences.
Andrew Baum
And maybe just before for those of you who aren't familiar, if you just give a little bit of background about the MAPS technology and just the Affinivax transaction.
Phil Dormitzer
Sure. Absolutely. So currently, you have vaccines that require carbohydrates margin on proteins, Heparin an example and HIB [ph] being another, rely on a conventional glycoconjugation technology, in which the carbohydrate is activated and then undergoes a chemical reaction with the protein. And what we've seen is as you go to higher valences, say, from 13 to 20 or so, although you do increase the level of coverage, the response to each individual serotype tends to decrease. The MAPS technology is not a conventional glycoconjugation, which you chemically activate the individual carbohydrates, rather the carrier proteins are genetically fused to is evident. The carbohydrate biotinylated is just a very simple noncovalent, but very strong interaction. And it does appear that as you get to the higher valences, the MAPS technology, which is this noncovalent, but strong technology, does appear to allow you to get to higher valences without the same degree of diminution of response against individual valences. So actually why that is? It's not entirely clear. It's sort of an empirical observation that we see. The original interest in the MAPS technology was because it made manufacturing so easy. It turns out that it also allows you to get to these higher valences with continued good coverage.
There's another potential advantage of the technology, and that is that the carrier proteins themselves, or pneumococcal proteins, against which immunity maybe elicited, we currently judge our -- these vaccines on the basis of anti-carbohydrate immunity. The potential additional benefit of anti-protein immunity is potentially additive to that.
Andrew Baum
So just in terms of the -- because when you're referencing immunity, you're talking about neutralization titers of monoclonals to that particular...
Phil Dormitzer
[Indiscernible] antibodies typically. Yes.
Andrew Baum
Okay. So then obviously, this is a surrogate.
Phil Dormitzer
Yes.
Andrew Baum
But then what I'm trying to get at is how much diminution of response is proportionate to a reduction in clinical efficacy in terms of infection?
Phil Dormitzer
Yes.
Andrew Baum
And whether that is consistent across different serotypes and whether it's consistent across different ranges? And has that been fully mapped and predicted and taken into account by the agencies?
Phil Dormitzer
Yes. There's actually pretty intensive attention paid to the individual serotypes. So for example -- serotype 3 is an example of a serotype that causes a considerable amount of use in older adults. It is not that well covered by current vaccines. Some of these new generation vaccines do appear to elicit better responses against serotype 3. So you do need to get into the details there a little bit because depending on what are the prevalent serotypes and what is the individual coverage on the individual serotypes does determine that aggregate, that potential aggregate.
Andrew Baum
I meant for any individual serotype.
Phil Dormitzer
Yes.
Andrew Baum
Whether a diminution of 10%, 15%, 20% and from what level and whether the impairment on efficacy is identical by serotype?
Phil Dormitzer
Yes, it is not. And that's why, for example, serotype 3 is particularly important.
Andrew Baum
Because it takes relatively little to translate into.
Phil Dormitzer
Exactly. It can cause a lot of disease and it does appear that immunity against serotype 3 antibody immunity, the action appears to be able to escape more easily. In fact, serotype 3 appears that it can shed that carbohydrate more readily than it can shed some others. So there are some biological differences between these serotypes. They're not all the same in their behaviors, and serotype 3 is a particularly tricky one, at least in the data we have thus far. We do see quite good serotype 3 responses, which is important.
Andrew Baum
And this is particularly relevant for invasive disease, yes?
Phil Dormitzer
Right, right.
Andrew Baum
Okay. And so let's talk from a competitive scenario where we are currently with Prevnar 20 and with Merck's equivalent brand name that I forget, but you'll remember.
Phil Dormitzer
The 15-valent conjugate.
Andrew Baum
Yes, I can't remember what the brand name is. And also with Merck's new -- well that is Merck’s new entry.
Phil Dormitzer
Yes.
Andrew Baum
V116, I think it is, the code number. So just taking three, how do they compare, do they address the problem, or they're still deficient in terms of what you think you could offer with Affinivax?
Phil Dormitzer
There are some different strategies that are being taken. The Merck part is really targeted specifically at older adults in its selection of serotypes, whereas both Prevnar 20 and the vaccines we're developing are developed -- are targeting against the entire range. In fact, the highest parameter of disease remains at this point still in infants. What we are seeing is that with the conventional glycoconjugation technology, at about 20, you're really starting to see this diminution. I think the MAPS technology enables us to get beyond 20. And even at 20, there's still a considerable burden of disease left. So I think what we're really looking at with the MAPS technology is the ability to target both adults and children and to go to the higher levels of valency above 30, where we think a conventional glycoconjugation technology will have a real difficulty going. So I think we're going to be highly competitive and say, the 24-valent space, I think we'll really start to really go where others can't go as we go up to the 30-plus space. And that doesn't take into account the potential role of anti-protein immunity added to anti-carbohydrate immunity.
Andrew Baum
And the goal would be not only to provide vaccination to naive adults, but also to adults who have been previously vaccinated with an existing vaccine because of the breadth of coverage. And the question is, would ACIP -- do you have an indication that ACIP would buy into that because obviously, if you want to capture that the prevalent patient population is much greater than the incident patient population?
Phil Dormitzer
Well, I guess, I don't want to try and predict what ACIP will do, but some of this is precedent for that with the -- as the valences have gone up on pneumococcal vaccines that re-immunization has been recommended.
Andrew Baum
Okay. And then the separate last question was on the immunity to the protein separate from the carbohydrate.
Phil Dormitzer
Yes.
Andrew Baum
So in terms of immunologic mechanisms, are we delineating between B cell and T cell or just a broader innate-adaptive or is there something -- what are you thinking of because obviously, your comments were underpinned by some...
Phil Dormitzer
Yes. I mean it could potentially -- against the protein, it could potentially be either. And I think -- certainly, it's directionally positive. How positive the addition of anti-pneumococcal protein immunity will be is to be determined to what degree that will add to the anti-carbohydrate immunity. I think it's going to be a good thing, how good a thing it's going to be, it's going to have to be determined.
Andrew Baum
Okay. I have got it. If there are any questions in the audience then, please raise your hand. I'm more than happy to take them. Otherwise, I'll just keep going with my list. So Shingrix...
Phil Dormitzer
Yes.
Andrew Baum
So this is launching very successfully. There has been some recent data on prevalence of dementia in patients who have been vaccinated or not. It's not entirely surprising. It's consistent, perhaps with what one might expect. The problem is what you do with it because you're never going to be able to run a trial in order to demonstrate this prospectively. And so it's a kind of interesting observation that builds into our evidence that viruses aren’t benign pathogens and can have long-term implications, but what you do with it. Unless I'm missing something, I was going to stop there and say, well, then let's segue to similar but different targets, but also with long-time -- long-term sequeli, like Epstein-Barr virus and that would seem a more interesting prospect?
Phil Dormitzer
I think they're both interesting. First thing we want to do is understand the effect with dementia, which was actually observed initially with Zostavax rather than with Shingrix, which is a -- Shingrix is a much more effective anti-varicella-zoster vaccine. So certainly, we now want to extend the observations that were made with Zostavax to make sure and confirm that they are there with Shingrix.
Andrew Baum
Has that -- it was a preprint from memory. Has it been subject to peer review yet or is it still a preprint?
Phil Dormitzer
I don't know. I don't know who inserted a peer review. I'd say there's a lot of interest in there. There are multiple studies looking at existing databases. Dementia takes a while to develop. So certainly, it's interesting looking at surrogate markers that may be able to get indication earlier. Trying to understand what is the mechanism, there's an association that was certainly observed with Zostavax, but trying to understand the mechanism is very important. Certainly, looking at the principle of Shingrix, which is different from that of most antiviral vaccines. Most antiviral vaccines target the entry apparatus, whereas Shingrix appears to target the immunovision apparatus. And we're certainly very interested in seeing to what degree can that principle be extended beyond just our current Shingrix to other pathogen, including Epstein-Barr virus as well. So we're very interested in understanding what we see with the current candidates as well and also about generating additional candidates that can target other herpes viruses using the same basic principles.
Andrew Baum
And do you have a herpes simplex virus in your portfolio or not apparently?
Phil Dormitzer
Yes. In the investigational -- but yes.
Andrew Baum
In which phase?
Phil Dormitzer
And I would say that would be an immunotherapeutic. So that will a little bit different, and that we'll be looking at -- we are looking at people who already have genital herpes...
Andrew Baum
To prevent the current recurrences.
Phil Dormitzer
And to prevent current recurrences, which gives you -- unlike power trying to prevent dementia. In fact, people who have herpes, genital herpes, it comes back a lot. So you have much more power to be able to show an effect.
Andrew Baum
Yes, it's much more manageable, monetizable asset. MenABCWY.
Phil Dormitzer
Yes.
Andrew Baum
You're also doing gonorrhea.
Phil Dormitzer
Yes.
Andrew Baum
So there was some interesting data that I hadn't previously seen that regardless of the gonorrhea antigen that I think ABC or one of the serotypes in that is associated with the reduction in gonorrhea.
Phil Dormitzer
The MenB component.
Andrew Baum
The MenB component, which is interesting and unexpected. So could you talk to that? And whether there's any indication that the regulator is going to consider that? Or whether that's just an interesting anomaly and the focus should be on gonorrhea? And then maybe talk to -- because obviously, MenB is available as a vaccine, including one of yours. And ACWY is available as a vaccine. So the merits in terms of commercial uptake of having an all-in-one and how that fits into the schedule? So two things.
Phil Dormitzer
So the epidemiological observations that link receipt of Bexsero to reduction in gonorrhea are very interesting. Now those are not randomized controlled trials to look at the outcome on gonorrhea, but we do have an actual gonorrhea vaccine that is targeted. And that's another one of these cases where if we go into a high-risk population, attack rates can be high enough that you can start to generate efficacy data. So it's certainly of interest that we see reductions in gonorrhea associated with Bexsero, but that's not randomized placebo-controlled trials in general. And I -- maybe...
Andrew Baum
Well before moving on to that, from a translational medicine approach, why should Men -- do we have -- apart from an overall general immuno response, is there any reason why that should translate into a reduction in gonorrhea?
Phil Dormitzer
The component of the vaccine is thought to be most biological plausible to bring their -- what's called the OMV, outer membrane vesicle component. And that's a component of bacteria that has multiple antigens there. You can come up with other reasons why there might be associations as well, both biological and behavioral in terms of who gets immunized against Bexsero, who's most likely to get gonorrhea. So certainly interested in -- this is actually a little bit analogous to what we're talking about before. There are certainly interests in pursuing the association. I'm most interested in well-controlled trials that actually demonstrate a causation.
Andrew Baum
New antigen. And so you've got breakthrough designation for gonorrhea.
Phil Dormitzer
Yes.
Andrew Baum
Where are we in terms of the clinical development plan and with the idea be to displace the existing or the soon to be approved ABCWY with the gonorrhea component or would it be left out there as altered option or would you be using to target high-risk groups and obviously, you have your ViiV franchise, which means that you have an access into patients who may have a high risk?
Phil Dormitzer
I mean the MenABCWY vaccine could be tremendously important. Ultimately, both for adolescents, heading off to college, for example, but also in infants as well. So I'd say that the value of gonorrheal vaccine is separate and potentially superimposable on the value of MenABCWY. In other words, it's possible that association with gonococcal production could be an added benefit of MenB or MenABCWY immunization. But a specifically gonorrhea-targeted vaccine as well an independent merit.
Andrew Baum
And potentially separate price points as well?
Phil Dormitzer
Potentially.
Andrew Baum
One thing I didn't ask on Shingrix is this issue of revaccination and when and which patients, in particular. Now from the follow-up we have, I think we have 10-year follow-up with very high levels, right?
Phil Dormitzer
Very high.
Andrew Baum
So are there subgroups of patients that we can identify either by functional age or they're on antiretroviral therapy or whatever that argues for boosting?
Phil Dormitzer
That's right. So I mean eventually, immunity, we will feed at the point we're boosting it is likely to be necessary. It is impressive that we get up to 10 years after primary immunization series that we still have such high immunity. But eventually, chances are, which will be required, likely to be sooner in those were immunocompromised and those who are not. There is some degree of a trade-off between going for boosters, going for broader indications in terms of the age range. So right now, we have ongoing studies where we continue to monitor people. And from the original trials for longer and longer periods of time that will inform those decisions about how much you prioritize re-immunization, how much you prioritize expanding age ranges, at this point, one of the things we do is continuing to monitor because you just don't see a very rapid drop-off in immunity yet.
Andrew Baum
You have a deal with CureVac, the German mRNA company. Could you talk and bring us up to date with your efforts, both through influenza and I can't remember whether you're still engaged with -- I think you're still engaged with COVID?
Phil Dormitzer
We are. On both.
Andrew Baum
So just bring us up to speed in where you are versus your somewhat behind the two other mRNA late-stage sponsors?
Phil Dormitzer
Yes. So we are in the clinic at this point with CureVac, with both influenza and COVID-19 vaccine. So that testing is ongoing, going well. We've also introduced into the clinic now an internal mRNA platform, COVID vaccine, largely with the notion that we're benchmarking against COVID, not so much because, in that case, we're after the COVID target, in particular.
Andrew Baum
And this is self-amplifying or not?
Phil Dormitzer
It is not self-amplifying.
Andrew Baum
Okay.
Phil Dormitzer
We have a long history in RNA at GSK as we -- of course, we have for our collaborative efforts as well. So through the Novartis acquisition, GSK is actually on the original RNA vaccine company. So we -- while was at Novartis many years ago, we started playing them primarily with self-amplifying RNA. We have found that the reliability of nucleoside-modified RNA makes it a very attractive candidate for additional vaccines.
Andrew Baum
So the data from these agents, in influenza, they're in Phase 1 now. The no-go decision to take forward into registration trials will be when?
Phil Dormitzer
We haven't released a specific date. What I can say is that we are very pleased with the Phase 1 data that we're seeing, and we do intend to progress these candidates.
Andrew Baum
And given -- so I know CureVac initially had not modified their RNA from memory.
Phil Dormitzer
Right.
Andrew Baum
And then there's a next-gen, which was modified, which is the one you're talking about.
Phil Dormitzer
That's right.
Andrew Baum
And so when we think about the immunogenicity and comparatively, on the basis of if the modification is what may be contributing to the immunogenicity or not, I mean, where I'm going is basically -- is there any reason to believe that the profile -- the AE profile is going to be differentiated from BioNtech and Moderna in terms of the flu vaccine?
Phil Dormitzer
Nucleoside modification is a huge step change in terms of being able to immunize tolerably with RNA. And that certainly remains true. Beyond that, the details of sequence optimization, the details of LNP composition, production, details of mRNA, manufacturing quality, you do have incremental -- additional incremental differences in terms of both tolerability and immunogenicity. So there's no question moving from non-nucleoside modified to nucleoside-modified RNA made a huge difference. But there's further room for differentiation based on define both composition and manufacturing.
Andrew Baum
For both efficacy and safety?
Phil Dormitzer
For both. And they're linked because it's the balance between tolerability and immunogenicity that you can adjust by really optimizing your RNAs.
Andrew Baum
And how much...
Phil Dormitzer
And lipid delivery system as well.
Andrew Baum
And how much is volume? I mean, obviously, you were self-amplifying mRNA, the advantages you're giving less. But does that mean that you end up with less reactogenicity or is that -- I don't understand what are the drivers of reactogenicity?
Phil Dormitzer
Sure. Sure.
Andrew Baum
Maybe you can help me.
Phil Dormitzer
Yes. So it's a little different for self-amplified RNA and nucleoside-modified RNA. I like to think of nucleoside-modified RNA as kind of a sort of a plow horse, a very reliable technology and although there are differences in terms of the ratio that you get of reactogenicity to immunogenicity, just depending on composition, in general, the more RNA you give, the more immunogenic it is, but also the more reactogenic it is. With self-amplifying RNA, certainly, in the laboratory, you can get tremendously potent, very small quantities of RNA in preclinical models, doing very well. The issue there is, can you scale it up, manufacture reliably at scale and keep it intact enough so that it really is a reliable product at a large scale. And so in the long run, I still have an interest in self-amplifying RNA, but for today, the nucleoside-modified RNA is much more practical.
Andrew Baum
As you think of novel targets that you wish to pursue, so we spoke about herpes simplex or a genital herpes, we mentioned EBV. Do you anything in the clinic?
Phil Dormitzer
Sorry?
Andrew Baum
EBV. Do you have any...
Phil Dormitzer
Very interested in EBV, yes. I mean, certainly, the link that's been shown...
Andrew Baum
With MS?
Phil Dormitzer
Yes, with MS, it's interesting. And of course, there are other -- nothing quite as big as MS in terms of total impact. The EBV has other potential...
Andrew Baum
Buckets.
Phil Dormitzer
Yes, exactly. And cytomegalovirus remains a huge as yet undefeated challenge with tremendous disease burden.
Andrew Baum
And so where are you -- I think you've got an IND for EBV. So that's good. But you have something pre-clinically, it sounds like?
Phil Dormitzer
We have -- yes. So we have -- definitely, we have research efforts around EBV. CMV, we have one program in Phase 2, also discovery efforts as well. Certainly, variances sort of principles that make Shingrix so effective, might work in other herpes viruses as well.
Andrew Baum
Okay. And Lyme disease if obviously, SKP had a Lyme disease virus that was withdrawn, and I seem to remember that the one that Pfizer licensed, which you'll remember, from Valneva that -- I think that one came from GSK originally?
Phil Dormitzer
I think it was originally.
Andrew Baum
Yes. But this is still a major and growing and significant monetizable opportunity. So is there -- are you working in that space or not?
Phil Dormitzer
It's not a current focus. Yes.
Andrew Baum
And when you look at the -- there are only a limited number of vaccine players because historically, the manufacturing -- now mRNA is -- I'm not sure if the right word is maybe democratized because the barriers to entry are somewhat lower than perhaps they were, although they're not low. But still, you need to have a certain amount of CAPEX and skills.
Phil Dormitzer
Certainly.
Andrew Baum
And therefore, the number of bidders is less, and therefore, it's been an attractive area to go fishing from a BD perspective, hence, you've got Affinivax. I'm not expecting you to give names, but are there novel platforms, targets, vaccines out there in the BioSphere, which are of interest to you? And are they increasing or is there a fairly stagnant shrinking pool, which means the growth opportunities with -- external growth opportunities of finite and therefore, all the innovation has really got to come from what you can attain internally?
Phil Dormitzer
I think there's still lots of room for innovation, both internally and externally. Certainly, we think that one of our strengths is having multiple platforms. We're not reliant on any single platform. Of course, we've been discussing the most innovative vaccines. We have over 20 licensed vaccines right now, many of which have life cycle management programs as well. So the fact that we have everything from conventional glycoconjugates to MAPS, bioconjugates in terms of the conjugation space, we have E. coli express and [indiscernible] express sub-units, extensive structural engineering subunits, adjuvant portfolio as well. Historic live attenuated vaccines, which -- some of which actually still have life cycle management possibilities is that breadth that I think remains important. And even within categories, such as nucleic acid-based vaccines or carbohydrate-based vaccines, there remain many opportunities for innovation within the categories as well.
Andrew Baum
And then one area that we get questions on is the Vaxcyte. You obviously decided you want to go to Affinivax.
Phil Dormitzer
We do.
Andrew Baum
So why -- what was the rationale, was it the platform value of Affinivax, were there some other -- and please bear in mind, this is not my core area of competence or I suspect many other people in the room. So maybe just give us a little bit of detail on why you went for Affinivax rather than the Vaxcyte approach?
Phil Dormitzer
Sure. And I'll focus more on Affinivax rather than Vaxcyte.
Andrew Baum
That's okay.
Phil Dormitzer
I think one of the original things that appealed to us so much about Affinivax was the manufacturing practicality of it. Conventional glycoconjugation has been around for a long time. And clearly, Affinivax has been a very successful vaccine. It's a very complicated technology. There's always a complication of having to make all those different carbohydrates. But in addition with convention glycoconjugations, you have a chemical reaction for each that then causes -- allows this covalent interaction with the carrier protein. What process initially was how simple MAPS technology was from a manufacturing point of view. You take your carrier and you fuse with [indiscernible] of the carbohydrate added, which is -- then a quite simple reaction. We really mix the two and do a very strong noncovalent interaction. They come together.
You don't have to get into a very novel processes to make the protein itself. And -- although when the initial appeals was the manufacturing simplicity, the discovering that you actually get better responses per carbohydrate as you go to higher valences was not intuitive that, that would be the case, but it just turned out to actually be the case. And that does not yet take into account the additional benefit of actually having a potentially protective immunity against the carbohydrates themselves. So it's the combination of the ability to get to higher valences, have strong responses against the individual valences combined with a great degree of manufacturing practicality that made Affinivax so appealing to us.
Andrew Baum
And we anticipate the first data in terms of just a catalyst for seeing the strep pneumonia vaccine, just remind us the time lines? And then when are we going to see the next project using that platform?
Phil Dormitzer
So there are already some Phase 2 data in adults. We will be -- we're starting infant trials in 2024. And in 2024, we also anticipate -- so in the first in-human trials, the 30-plus valent vaccine as well. So these will be important. Although due to a fill finish issue, we ended up stopping the event trial and allowed us to get a preliminary look. We're very pleased with what we're seeing and encourages us to go forward. And also allows us to refine the way we're going forward as well. So in other words, being able to tailor as we pick up the infant trials and progressive adult trials.
Andrew Baum
So aside from the Affinivax strep pneumonia vaccine, what are the pipeline projects that maybe not be so well known to the investors in the room that you are most excited about within your vaccine portfolio? And one thing I didn't mention, given the ownership or majority ownership of ViiV, HIV, is there still of live interest or is it in the backseat?
Phil Dormitzer
Yes, yes, very, very much so. Now ViiV is primarily focused on antivirals rather than vaccines.
Andrew Baum
So I just meant just because the organization...
Phil Dormitzer
Overall, there's a synergy of having ViiV for HIV. A very active infectious disease division that's producing both antibodies, antibiotics as well.
Andrew Baum
mRNA. HyperHEP B.
Phil Dormitzer
HyperHEP B, chronic HEP B, RNA-based therapeutics as well. Of course, the vaccine portfolio, also global health portfolio as well, with Mosquirix as just one example. The fact that we have now sort of a quite comprehensive infectious disease offering across these areas gives us strength, and I think that actually some deep subject matter expertise really does make a difference. And the fact that we can work together across the various modalities of anti-infective treatments and prophylactics is important.
Andrew Baum
So on HIV, do you have anything in the clinic?
Phil Dormitzer
For vaccine?
Andrew Baum
Yes.
Phil Dormitzer
No. I would love to make an HIV vaccine. We do need to see something that looks more promising than the HIV vaccines that have been tested today. [Multiple Speakers]. So we remain open-minded. I have not found an HIV vaccine to seize on at this point.
Andrew Baum
So I've exhausted my questions. I'm looking in the room if there are any add-ons. It seems not. On that note, Phil, I'd like to thank you and Jeff, for joining us today. Much appreciated.
Phil Dormitzer
Thank you. Nice speaking with you.
For further details see:
GSK plc (GSK) Citi's 18th Annual BioPharma Conference Transcript