Adam Davidson, CEO of Trident Royalties, discusses offtake milestones and catalysts to boost FY24. Watch the video 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.
Jeez this is painful. It doesn’t say how much other than therapeutic levels whatever that means. Presumable any amount no matter how small is therapeutic because we know the effect that dox has on tumours.
It’s all down to Al’s propensity for ambiguous phrases. And up to now it isn’t the most positive interpretation that has been how things have turned out.
Do you Read RNS’s touk?
10 tumour biopsies obtained from 9 patients in different cohorts have also been analysed in order to confirm the release of the active chemotherapy, doxorubicin, in the tumour tissue.
👍
Hje306
Exactly my point. And how many out of 40 patients were biopsies performed on. Just 4? Or were those the good results only?
Bitl,
When you say "Once thing’s for sure. We’ll not agree on how where the science currently sits, and the significance of its achievements. The SP is where it is because AS hasn’t got a clue what he’s doing."
Do you mean it should be higher, or it never should have got as high as it did/has?
I can't quite work out if you think it has been over hyped or should have been around say, 30p at the start of the trial and worked its way up as more positive data has been revealed?
How hilarious indeed Watching as it wasn't me that bothered to have such a pointless post deleted.
I only ask for abusive or defamatory posts deleted.
Idiotic ,stupid and silly (and I think you hit the tri-vector there personally with your latest missive), don't bother me.
There waas information provided on the dox found in the biopsies. Not been paying attention again touk?
Thompi
But none of these give us any clue as to dox in the tumour and yes I know it was a safety trial which is what I’m trying to impress on the rampers.
Anyway hopefully with rich data reveal we will (soon) find out.
Touk, did they find the MTD in the pre-clinical trials with the mouse models, answer is yes. FMcL stated it was 2mg/kg, have they found MTD for humans, answer is no. On this evidence why would it not be a surprise results were better than expected.
you state; " The Rat ?? trials certainly predicted those results". No they did not, flogging a dead horse comes to mind. I give up bye.
Watching
How can one find out who has removed one’s post. As a poster who seems to be affected by this more than others I would like to know.
My thanks too Smeeagainbruce, it was good to rewatch that bit of the presentation again. There is a further mention at 23:22 into the video, which also sheds some more light on the rationale for the fortnightly trial.
CC is referring to slide 13: Toxicities with AVA6000 Demonstrate a Dose Relationship
“And so this table then describes for you a critical observation, as it provides then our first evidence that using a lower dose, and potentially shortening the interval between doses to every two weeks could enhance the anti-tumour activity by delivering more drug, increasing the dose intensity but with little to no severe toxicity. There are examples of this kind of approach in the clinic. Probably the most relevant here is the taxane Paclitaxel in the field of oncology. When Paclitaxel is administered in some settings in an every three-week regimen at a higher dose it's highly toxic, it's effective. However, when it was moved to an every weekly regimen with a lower dose, the toxicity was minimised and actually enhanced the activity. This weekly regimen is used more in the clinic, both are still used. But this is the rationale for these new dose cohorts of every two weeks dosing and it's based on the observations in this slide.”
https://youtu.be/eqj0hhgmX6U?si=tER5X1gdtec3L9Cd
Donkey I repeat myself because other posters keep asking the same question or ignore/twist the answers I give.
BITL, if AVA6000 was 'miracle cure' we wouldn't be at 50p a share would we?
So the 'evidence' suggests that it's a little more nuanced than this.
We only know what the company tells us, which does change rather often and uses lots of ambiguous terms and phrases, which as you know, I've a history of having problems with preferring to interpret them as offering a little supportive guidance rather than categorical 'proof' that 'It Works'.
Not much point continuing this thread?
(But in answer to your question you need to 'Guesstimate' the likely difference in outcomes of the two trial arms to inform you as to how many patients are likely to be needed to answer the questions you want answered with statistical significance.
I'm no expert thought so please don't think that just asking me lots of questions that you then hope to 'shoot down' shows anything other than a degree of desperation on your part.
Lost count of the times you've said this or similar. Why keep repeating yourself...are you hoping eventually others will think the same?
My time frame is 5 to 10 years for Avacta to come good or be taken over. Do I propose to post here daily trying to persuade others - no.
“ until you know how much more or less effective it is than standard Dox it'll be a bit of an educated guess”
But aren’t you saying that we need an enlarged trial to come to the above conclusion?
Smeag + cj62
Ok I’ve rewatched the video. Nothing there precludes my concerns about excretion versus cleaving. It is great that safety profile allows more frequent dosing and better still that it keeps a higher concentration of AVA6000 in the blood for longer. Anyway we will see what is actually happening when arm 2 finishes whenever that is.
And my point about how the trial had to be extended being a surprise because the “results were far better than expected” still stands The rat trial results certainly predicted those results. And I can’t remember Avacta saying “better than expected “ I think they just said “unexpected “. But I am more than happy if someone finds that quote.
Finally I am invested and want it to work but I do take offence to the constant black and white “it works”.
I have to say the posters who simply keep saying it works seem pretty wilful to me.
No one is saying it does not work, there are just a few of us saying that the platform works but that at this stage is not proof of efficacy of outcomes.
Likewise we all realise that this is not what this part of the trial was designed for.
All I am, in particular saying, is that based on passed history I am sceptical of what AVCT implies without peer review or conclusive data release.
This is compounded by, what seems a "seat of the pants" approach to progressing the trail and various timelines and then re-enforced by the level of the raise and subsequent, to date, muted SP reaction.
At best, this says to me anything definitive is most likely a ways off.
But it also holds out enough hope that something truly remarkable might come from this. Just because I see commercial failure higher than commercial success currently does not mean its remotely out of the realms to be a success.
All might be revealed later (prob Q4) this year but with AVCT you never know.
The number you need depends on how far the chosen clinical outcome differ from each other.
Subtle outcomes for measures such as diabetic control or cholesterol levels might need many, many thousands.
It'll be less for AVA6000 but until you know how much more or less effective it is than standard Dox it'll be a bit of an educated guess.
Which is why Tim's 'It Works' narrative appears to me to be a little simplistic and naive.
Not qualities that usually result in successful investing outcomes, especially on AIM.
What are they though? How many more patients?
There are lots of measures BITL but if I had a Sarcoma I'd ask the Doctor which treatment would be most likely to extend my life for the longest.
5 year and 10 year survival rates are often used.
Which is why a couple of dozen patients with a mixed clinical response and a variety of different tumour types presents difficulties in giving categorical answers as to AVA6000's likely usefulness at this point in time.
More time, more patients, more money and they'll start to get the beginnings of an answer though.
Thorn please go and watch that link between the timeframes outlined. This part of the trial has unequivocally answered the questions:
1. Is AVA6000 safer than straight dox? Yes
2. Is AVA6000 cleaved in the tumour in therapeutic levels? Yes.
3. Does AVA6000 allow for more frequent and extended dosing? Yes, to the latter, in theory yes to the former, but we’ll know the outcome of that in terms of safety and efficacy shortly.
'Works'.
I'm perfectly happy to wait four weeks for the answer. Really not a problem.
Please define: “ improved clinical outcomes”.
That might be a bonus.
'Works'.
As a delivery platform or are there improved clinical outcomes and survival rates than the current Dox standard of care treatment regime?
Simple question Tim. Because if it's not the latter it's not what BP/the Markets want to hear.
What's the answer or just shout 'FUD' again and hope no one notices?
They don't care, they've never watched a presentation or read an RNS properly.
Perpetual fud is all they are interested in.
We know pre|CISION works as intended I posted that yesterday for the data, which is fact.
We know pre|CISION works
Thanks smee, always worth revisiting that presentation.
Thorn, Touk, Wyndrum - you all seem to have reservations and theories around the mechanism of action of AVA6000, on efficacy, dox concentrations, excretion rates etc. You can get answers to these if you watch from 16-39m, where this is all explained by CC.