

Every major pharma company tried to make OX40 agonists work in cancer, and every single one failed. Now Inhibrx's hexavalent approach just delivered Phase 2 results that could resurrect an entire abandoned drug class.
Imagine an entire neighborhood of restaurants that all tried the same concept and all went bankrupt. The location's cursed, everyone says. No one should open there again.
That's basically what happened with OX40 agonists in cancer immunotherapy. For over a decade, some of the biggest names in pharma (Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb) poured resources into drugs targeting OX40, a protein on T cells that acts like a volume knob for immune activation. The idea was elegant: crank up that knob, and the immune system fights tumors harder. It worked beautifully in mice. In humans? Not so much.
Roche's MOXR0916 got just 1 partial response among 172 patients in a phase I monotherapy study. AstraZeneca ran multiple programs across three different OX40 antibodies and never broke through. GSK pulled the plug on its own candidate after seeing no real benefit over existing drugs. One by one, companies walked away. By the mid-2020s, most of the industry had written off OX40 as a target that looked great on paper but couldn't deliver in the clinic.
Then Inhibrx showed up with a different kind of key for the same lock.
The problem wasn't the biology. It was the engineering.
Most early OX40 drugs were bivalent antibodies, meaning they grabbed onto OX40 at just two points. Think of it like trying to start a campfire by rubbing two sticks together: technically possible, but wildly inefficient. OX40 needs to be clustered tightly on the cell surface to fire up proper T-cell signaling. Two attachment points couldn't generate enough clustering to make a meaningful difference in patients.
Trial design didn't help either. Researchers struggled with timing, dosing, and choosing the right combination partners. The drugs showed clear signs of immune activation (T cells were proliferating, the right signals were firing), but tumors kept growing anyway. It was like revving an engine that wasn't connected to the wheels.
Inhibrx's drug, INBRX-106, took a fundamentally different approach. Instead of two binding arms, it has six. That's what "hexavalent" means: six points of contact with OX40 on the T-cell surface.

The FDA just approved a blood test that catches breast cancer outsmarting its own treatment, months before a scan would. Paired with AstraZeneca's new drug camizestrant, it could reshape how oncologists fight treatment resistance in real time.


Join thousands of biotech professionals who start their day with our free, daily briefing.
Why does that matter? More contact points means tighter receptor clustering, which means a much stronger activation signal. If the old drugs were rubbing two sticks together, INBRX-106 is a blowtorch. It doesn't need help from other cellular machinery to get OX40 firing properly.
The company paired it with pembrolizumab (the blockbuster PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor sold as Keytruda) and tested the combination in first-line PD-L1-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Pembrolizumab is already the standard of care for these patients, so the question was simple: does adding INBRX-106 make it work better?
The Phase 2 study, called HexAgon, delivered the kind of data that makes oncology researchers do a double-take.
Patients receiving the combination had a confirmed response rate of 48.3%, compared with 26.5% for pembrolizumab alone. That's nearly double. The combination arm also produced four complete responses (meaning the cancer became undetectable) out of 29 patients. The pembrolizumab-only arm had zero complete responses.
The durability signal was arguably even more impressive. Median progression-free survival (how long patients went before their cancer grew back) hit 9.6 months in the combination group versus 4.9 months for pembrolizumab alone. At the six-month mark, 72.4% of combination patients were still progression-free, compared to just 42.8% in the control arm.
For a drug class that everyone had left for dead, those numbers feel like finding a pulse.
Bury into the subgroup data and the story gets even more interesting. In HPV-positive head and neck cancer patients, the combination produced an 80% response rate versus 33.3% for pembrolizumab alone. The complete response rate in that subgroup was 30%. Median progression-free survival for these patients hadn't even been reached yet at the data cutoff, meaning the benefit was still growing.
This makes biological sense. HPV-driven tumors are loaded with viral antigens (foreign proteins the immune system can recognize). They're basically waving a flag that says "attack me." The problem is that the immune response often stalls out before finishing the job. Adding a potent T-cell costimulator like INBRX-106 on top of PD-1 blockade could be the one-two punch these patients need: pembrolizumab takes the brakes off the immune system, while INBRX-106 slams the accelerator.
Previous OX40 drugs generated interesting biological signals but never translated them into the kind of hard outcomes (better response rates, longer progression-free survival) that move the needle in oncology. That distinction matters enormously.
The result carries implications well beyond head and neck cancer. If the hexavalent design is what cracked the code, it suggests the entire OX40 field was using the wrong tools rather than chasing the wrong target. That's a meaningful distinction for companies deciding where to invest their R&D dollars.
Commentators have described the data as a potential "class re-energizer," and it's easy to see why. A whole category of immunotherapy that was gathering dust might suddenly be worth revisiting, provided other companies adopt more potent agonist formats.
Before anyone gets too excited, some important context. The study enrolled a relatively small number of patients, and the data is still maturing. Overall survival numbers haven't been reported yet, and that's the endpoint that ultimately determines whether a drug changes clinical practice.
Head and neck cancer patients with high PD-L1 expression already have a reasonable first-line option in pembrolizumab. Proving that the addition of INBRX-106 is worth the extra complexity (and cost) will require a larger, confirmatory trial.
Still, in a field littered with abandoned programs and disappointed investors, a near-doubling of response rates and a progression-free survival advantage of almost five months is the kind of signal that makes people pay attention. The cursed restaurant location might finally have a tenant that knows how to cook.
Roivant's inhaled lung drug just posted Phase 2 data strong enough to send the stock up 20% in a day. One analyst thinks it could be a $10 billion-a-year drug. Here's why the numbers have Wall Street losing its mind.