The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Hi jackdaw99
Now we have some more information has it helped you fill in the gaps from last week or do you need to wait for the next set of company updates?
ATB
Chester.
Correct - same reason why "value-aded scores" in school standards are a bit silly. There's only so far to go. However, the interesting thing is that there is no strong signal that the progress is curvilinear between 0-6 months. As I pointed out, the linear relation explains a hell of a lot of the variance so far but, as you obviously realise prediction is just that ..... but it's marginally better than hand-waving! I'd like to see the raw data.
Many thanks for the intelligent and (mercifully) respectful discussion here. I just have one point to make. The phrase used is that a three line improvement is clinically meaningful. As testing proceeds with patients with a higher baseline visual acuity surely this figure must reduce otherwise (to take an extreme example) you could end up with the requirement that the improvement needs to be better than 20:20 to be meaningful. I'm not a statistician but I suspect that JD's analysis is linear whereas the analysis should somehow be asymptotic to the 20:20 line? 37 letters is 7 lines - I think you're soon going to run out of chart!
Not sure many people here know anything about statistics. Some of comments over last few days might right but are not based on the very very limited presented dataset. Anyway given this still looks very very encouraging, in my view.
Thanks for your posts jackdaw and I very much hope 37 letters is right, but it seems unlikely. We already know that one of the patients is at 12 letters for 9 months, so to get a mean figure of 37 the other two would have to hit 49 letters at 9 months. That’s a big gap up! I agree that the one figure at 9 months could be an outlier and even if 12 letters is maintained that would be a great result. For me, the most encouraging number was 28.7 letters at 6 months - because it suggests that at least 2 of the 3 initial patients are demonstrating remarkable improvement using the latest data. Let’s hope it continues into the 9 month horizon.
My posts today, with some others, have tried to put some context to the RNS. The sample size is very very small. But I still think the results so far are amazing.
I’m sure I will be accused as a ramper. But I’m a small long time investor, ca £1500, now down to just over £2.00. No medical knowledge but interested.
Who knows but I think the adverse reaction has been unwarranted. But as a small Woodford investor, what do I know.
I thought monetise would be a winner.
Duh
Long term holder here of over 10 years. I know a family that has RP. So let’s say I would be very happy for success here. I posted facts from the RNS and you say I’m misleading. You then post 37 letters as your projection. 37 letters mean would be transformational for RENE. I would be delighted with that.
I offered facts so in no way misleading.
Hi Pope's and JD99
Your discussion about how to dig into the RNS data just proves that without all the missing information we cannot be certain and for that matter confident what we think is in fact right.
JD99 your analysis of the 0-6 months makes sense but we don't know what happens next.
Let's hope that a lot of the missing blanks will be filled in at the conferences end of next week.
I'm sure the story is not as bleak as some would like to make out.
ATB
Chester.
It's just stats but they are objective and help make an informed decision. If you do the calculations yourself you will get exactly the same result, so you can hardly accuse the statistical procedures of any bias one way or the other. The objective trend is VERY clear - strongly upwards - the only subjective element is whether you believe the trend will continue. I don't see any reason why not whereas you think it won't. Fair enough. The answer lies in the biology of this theraputic and, for that, we need more data.
The best we can do with the available data is read it and accept it as representative of where we are right now. Wait for further information . My table was an extract from the recent RNS . Others can make up their mind on what they think of your 37 letters comment.
It's the best we can do with the available data. The real problem is the lack of information from 6-9 months (and the "condensed" way they have pooled the data until that point) , so we have to wait. The curve may well flatten, with a law of diminishing returns, but there is no indication of that in the 0-6 months data, so while it's not impossible I would be surprised if that were to turn out to be the case. What I am confident about is that no statistician would EVER base a prediction on a single data point so this 9 month datum is meaningless for me at the moment.
Brilliant thanks for clarifying that. That being the case I would say the £1 bounce is a very conservative guess. More like £10 I would say. Great news for me and the patients. Let's hope your analysis is not misleading.
IF the regression predicts reliable from the first 6 months of data, the value at 9 months would not be your +12 as per your table, but would be +37 (ie about 8 higher than the 28 at 6 months in your table).
In summary, the data so far gives me confidence this works and I would expect to see a mean value for the 9-month datas, once more samples are in, of about 37 letters
=======================================================================================================
For clarity are you saying you expect a mean improvement of 7 lines in the ETDRS chart?
No problem. Thanks for the mature reply!
ah Thanks for that. Once everyone has read your post the £1 the share has lost should bounce straight back up.
Your analysis is misleading. First, the datum at 9 months, as has been pointed out already, is a single point, not a mean. For that reason I would exclude it as unreliable. Using the rest of the data (while conceding we cannot do the ideal, repeated-measures analysis of variance on the data as presented) it's possible do to a rough-and-ready regression and correlation analysis of mean increase versus time since treatment (ie the rest of the data in your table) ...... which gives an indication that the relationship between time and improvement is highly significant with 92% of the variance explained and that each additional month since treatment adds about 3 more letters of improvement. If you add the 9-month observation into the mix, obviously the strength of the effect declines but, as I said before, it's not really possible to weight the analysis properly for sample size given the information we have. My judgement is that the 9 months point, given the strong relationship shown by the rest of the data (linear and not showing any sign of peaking, by the way), is an outlier and should be included only when other 9-month points are available. In summary, the data so far gives me confidence this works and I would expect to see a mean value for the 9-month datas, once more samples are in, of about 37 letters. Let's hope so.
Slowing down the rate of shareholder value degradation might be an idea as well. This is looking like a 2 decade investment now.
Clinically meaningful improvement, but let's not forget that even slowing down the rate of degradation would be a significant benefit to the patients.
BTW Popes. I’m agreeing and reinforcing your analysis
Months No of patients No of patients excl 2
1. 8. 6.
2. 8. 6.
3. 8. 6.
6. 4. 3.
9. 1. 1.
I doubt if this trial is like a horse race with them all starting at the same time. And that anyone has been excluded without notice. So I say again fall off at 9 months is based on 1 patient.
Clinically meaningful is 3 lines or 15 letters on the ETDRS chart.
Month 1 = +14.5 letters (mean)
month 2 = +13 letters (mean)
month 3 = +17.8 letters (mean)
month 6 = +28.7 letters(mean)
month 9 = +12letters (mean).
Sweet spot appears to be months 3-6(ish) for clinically meaningful data. Falls below clinically meaningful at month 9.