Sareum Share Chat (SAR)

Ben, it's been 19 weeks and 2 days since Feb 17th. JR said they had already started shem the RNS was issued. We can safely say we are 20 weeks or more. The end of July will be not far from 25 weeks. I initially read the RNS thinking that the 'dosing period' includes the wrapping up of the live testing before starting the revues of the data. I still do to some extent. As I said, it's deliberate obfuscation. SAR have always done it. I'm not going to tie myself in knots trying to work out what they really mean.

Des, JR’s comment related to the overall completion of the study - 16 week dosing is what it is, otherwise it doesn’t represent the 16 week human trial of phase2, that said extended chronic toxicity could have been agreed.

I’ve asked the question that’s all.

GLA

As a group, we should never allow the board to gaslight us. If 16 weeks isn't 16 continuous week, they should say that. Don't stick up for them.

I've given up trying to second-guess the timescales. I'm now waiting for Q4 data readout. The study restart RNS states: "the programme for Phase 2 clinical development. The dosing phase of the toxicology studies is expected to complete in mid-2026, with the full Phase 2-enabling package expected to be complete by year-end."

It appears that SP is saying that end of July is mid-2026. It's the usual obfuscation. To what end though. The delay of the release and content feels like they aren't telling us something.

You can argue what the exact mid year date is but it isn't 1 month into Q3.

I've given up trying to second-guess the timescales. I'm now waiting for Q4 data readout. The study restart RNS states: "the programme for Phase 2 clinical development. The dosing phase of the toxicology studies is expected to complete in mid-2026, with the full Phase 2-enabling package expected to be complete by year-end."

It appears that SP is saying that end of July is mid-2026. It's the usual obfuscation. To what end though. The delay of the release and content feels like they aren't telling us something.

You can argue what the exact mid year date is but it isn't 1 month into Q3.

I guess it all depends on how it is licenced. For monotherapy, there is no value. The data is average and probably not worth investing in. As a combo, it could be worth hundreds of millions. I dont think an upfront would be massive, maybe £3 to 5 million but don't forget that 37% of that would go to the ICR. However it would give enough time to make a deal on 1801 and 1802 and possibly move '1803' along. By that point. I reckon a few LTH would have made enough profit to sell up.

737 on licenced for £1m up front with payment on first dosing etc etc. I think I would verge on Pampisford with a pitch fork and bring an egg or two to the AGM

(This is a joke but would reflect the frustration)

I'd be really miffed if we got another opaque 737 deal...unless it was for £100m in which case I'd welcome our faceless overlords.

To answer HBD, question. Takeda paid $4 billion dollars for TAK-279 on phase 2 data. With another 3 billion in milestones! If 1801 can equal or better the efficiency. Who knows? Even with a 90% discount for risk. The phase 1 data could be worth 400 million dollars. Nimbus had already turned down a terms sheet of 850 million dollars but that was on phase 1b data.

We can make our own speculative valuations but for me. A safe a tolerable compound is probably worth between 500 and 800 million dollars before it starts phase 2. If it was for sale. If 1801 goes into phase 2, the price goes up, especially if data snapshots can be shared.

Agreed. A unicorn 737 deal would be to sell it, lock stock. Enough funds for the next 2 or 3 years and let the market decide the value of the company once dillution isn't a risk.

Without further upsetting Ben. We aren't quite there yet.

Https://www.ipsen.com/press-release/ipsen-to-acquire-memo-therapeutics-ag-adding-first-in-class-bk-polyomavirus-antibody-expanding-rare-disease-portfolio-3320317/

The market keeps moving. Where is Sar?

We know they can fail though. That's where this anxiety comes from. One abnormality, a lesion etc and the whole study is in doubt. I think the other problem, for me, at least. Is we have dared to dream before and had the rug pulled from under us many times.

I always try to stay on the fence, see both sides and try to rationalise the situation using the info we do know but anything out of the ordinary that we can't explain away, generally tips this board into negative sentiment.

The fact that the p1 data was published and Tim attended San Diego last week should give us some comfort. The CC initiative was a great addition to shareholder relations. IMO, They could have put out any old waffle and we would have known what it meant. We didn't get one for June, presumably for a valid reason. The joys of investing in early bio tech.

Lots of positives to pick out but a little nod or a wink from the board would be welcome.

Sometimes, it would be nice just to wake up and read in plain vocabulary a comprehensive positive post from the BoD, hopefully, that will be soon as the apparent “in life” part of the 16 week Toxicity Studies concludes and an update on “progress” from JR perhaps!

No June CC, not a major concern as I’d rather SP concentrates on “Contractural” matters at this stage, we know the stated pathway - so a newsletter not a priority for me.

If one needed we could always have a substitute with “Tim’s Mutterings”, an insight to his Bio visits - similar to the Receptor AI guy perhaps!

I seem to recall “Toxicity Studies can’t fail” ???? - why the tense bb then? - maybe not in providing information, they can if that information isn’t commercially viable.

I wait patiently for the next RNS

GLA

Not a lover of AI.

Came across the folliwing a while ago.

Yes, Contract Research Organizations (CROs) that carry out toxicology testing on animals are required to check the suitability and safety of the excipients used in their study formulations.Excipients are not simply inert carriers; they can introduce hidden toxicities or interfere with the study's scientific validity.

Ai response npt the be sll.amd rnd all.of vourse but an indication of approximate timelines.

'Producing a comprehensive toxicology study report post the 16-week (90-day) in-life phase typically takes 8 to 12 weeks. The entire process—including bioanalysis, histopathology, peer review, and final quality assurance (QA) sign-off—results in an overall reporting time of roughly 3 to 4 months after the final animal is necropsied.

The timeline is driven by several key post-study data evaluation stages:Bioanalytical Analysis (Weeks 1–4): Processing and analyzing blood, plasma, and tissue samples to determine drug exposure levels (pharmacokinetics).Histopathology & Pathology (Weeks 2–8): Evaluating tissue slides and organs. This is often the most time-consuming step due to the thorough microscopic examination required for long-term studies.Drafting the Report (Weeks 8–10): Toxicologists integrate clinical observations, clinical pathology, and histopathology data to draft the comprehensive study report.

QA Review & Finalization (Weeks 10–12): The draft undergoes intense quality assurance auditing, sponsor review, and final pathologist/study director sign-off to ensure regulatory compliance.'

Difficult to release data from an uncompleted report without causing problematic intepretations on the data released.

Some data will.be known already as in establishing an MTD.

Nice to know and conforms to legislstive requiements but we are looking at long suitability for long term use.

Font just look at what w801 can potentially do but also gor how long for ie a lifetime in cerain indicstions like plaque Psoriasis.

Any interested party sits in the same boat as us. They will want to know safety and efficacy and most certainly suitability for longterm use.

Just how big can an inhibitor capture of a wotlwide market with a commercialised 1801 initially focusing on Psoriasis?

1803?

Nobody knows as early stages with investigstions showing possible potential in BBB and CNS.

Definately need an update on this even if only to say still.progressing.

Regards

Ai response npt the be sll.amd rnd all.of vourse but an indication of approximate timelines.

'Producing a comprehensive toxicology study report post the 16-week (90-day) in-life phase typically takes 8 to 12 weeks. The entire process—including bioanalysis, histopathology, peer review, and final quality assurance (QA) sign-off—results in an overall reporting time of roughly 3 to 4 months after the final animal is necropsied.

The timeline is driven by several key post-study data evaluation stages:Bioanalytical Analysis (Weeks 1–4): Processing and analyzing blood, plasma, and tissue samples to determine drug exposure levels (pharmacokinetics).Histopathology & Pathology (Weeks 2–8): Evaluating tissue slides and organs. This is often the most time-consuming step due to the thorough microscopic examination required for long-term studies.Drafting the Report (Weeks 8–10): Toxicologists integrate clinical observations, clinical pathology, and histopathology data to draft the comprehensive study report.

QA Review & Finalization (Weeks 10–12): The draft undergoes intense quality assurance auditing, sponsor review, and final pathologist/study director sign-off to ensure regulatory compliance.'

Difficult to release data from an uncompleted report without causing problematic intepretations on the data released.

Some data will.be known already as in establishing an MTD.

Nice to know and conforms to legislstive requiements but we are looking at long suitability for long term use.

Font just look at what w801 can potentially do but also gor how long for ie a lifetime in cerain indicstions like plaque Psoriasis.

Any interested party sits in the same boat as us. They will want to know safety and efficacy and most certainly suitability for longterm use.

Just how big can an inhibitor capture of a wotlwide market with a commercialised 1801 initially focusing on Psoriasis?

1803?

Nobody knows as early stages with investigstions showing possible potential in BBB and CNS.

Definately need an update on this even if only to say still.progressing.

Regards

Even getting AI to write their LinkedIn posts. No CC then, strange, perhaps tomorrow will bring something.

I see Receptor's main man, Alan Nafiev, also posted "Great to reconnect with partners and meet many new teams in San Diego. Excited for the follow-up conversations."

Would love to have been a fly on the wall if he met up with Tim (and it would be really odd if they didn't have a catch-up).

CEPTOR.AI

10,761 followers

Introducing StratAI — an agentic decision engine for drug discovery built by RECEPTOR.AI.

Drug discovery is often managed as a linear funnel.

But in practice, every new result changes the program: the hypothesis, the priorities, the trade-offs, and the next best experiment.

StratAI helps discovery teams turn this complexity into an adaptive decision process.

It supports R&D decision-makers, medicinal chemists, and computational chemists in defining the starting strategy, building an evidence base, generating and evaluating hypotheses, planning computational and experimental workflows, and updating the path forward as new evidence appears.

The output is not just a ranked list or a piece of lab automation.

It is a clearer strategy for what to do next, why it matters, and how each new result should change the program.

StratAI is designed to support discovery across modalities, including small molecules, peptides, and biologics, as a shared decision layer within Receptor.AI’s PharmaSphere™ ecosystem.

Over the coming weeks, we’ll share short videos on StratAI architecture and practical discovery use cases.

First up: TYK2 — turning basic target context into a structured evidence base and actionable design hypotheses.

Learn more about StratAI in our News Release: https://lnkd.in/drJKkT7u

More 'evidence' that there could be an offcial partnership being built.

Hi Potnak. If it is , it could be something for Chairman's Corner to feature . Something new to hinge the monthly update with .

I dont know. IMO, there is a lot they could say in a CC without breaking any regulatory rules. Tyk2 in oncology? Chk1 combo potential. A high level review of what the peer reviewed data actually means? It'll be a moot point, If one drops in the next few days but not getting one will just cause anxiety. We are we are though. Patience needed.

I dont know. IMO, there is a lot they could say in a CC without breaking any regulatory rules. Tyk2 in oncology? Chk1 combo potential. A high level review of what the peer reviewed data actually means? It'll be a moot point, If one drops in the next few days but not getting one will just cause anxiety. We are we are though. Patience needed.

Not sure I agree Potnak. If a CC doesn’t drop today I think it may be because is SP is limited in what he can say and may be waiting for an imminent RNS so that the CC can be more meaningful and add some meat to the bones.

If that is the case then a RNS may drop this week followed by the CC. If it drops today then I agree with one of your earlier posts that said there would not be too much that SP could state that wasn’t in the last CC. Tomorrow takes us into July and we must be very close to Tox study completion with no adverse information being reported or hinted at. All good in my book until told otherwise

Yes, we have become relient on the CC. Whilst the content is sometimes interesting, for me, it isn't the reason I think they are valued. It's the fact that a post about anything, is a nod to say, everything is OK, still on track. Not getting a CC is out of the ordinary and the board will know this might create anxiety amongst the shareholders so if nothing today, there must be a valid reason. If they have become an administrative overhead that SP doesn't want to commit to, fair enough but let's have one last one to set some expectations.

We've become quite reliant on the monthly CC for info so pushing the June instalment back to the last day of the month makes me wonder if we'll get an RNS tomorrow and the CC will expand upon it later in the day. Perhaps news of tox study completion as none of us know what the exact start date was?

On the other hand, if no RNS but we do get a CC tomorrow, perhaps it'll go further into the importance of the P1a peer review and if it led to greater interest in San Diego. Lots of news to come on all fronts, we just need one key piece to kickstart the sp.

Sorry, meant George/LJ. (Too early in the morning.)

Hi George/JL - "well show us the data" is a phrase the BoD have used a few times so we're now in the position to dangle larger carrots in front of interested parties. Having the P1a data independently verified was a big step and the tox data should reinforce the BoD's opinion 1801 could be best in class. Didn't a presentation slide suggest 1801 is a pipeline in a pill?

Disappointed the sp hasn't reflected where we are re progress - maybe sellers needing end-of-month money or MMs trying to create a stock ahead of news?

Regards.

Given the title thread, we probably sit in SP’s hands trying to get a decent solution across the line, find it intriguing that Term Sheets are mentioned solely in the Pharmaceutical world as they are part and parcel of the JV, Angel Investors, Bridging Loans and dare I say CLN’s of the “financial” boys!

Can’t understand the drop in sp at the close today, but, with independent validation I think we took a step forward this week, as usual with good old Sareum, no reflection of such.

As long as we keep ticking boxes, I do think we will get there, but, probably have to leave some fat on the table - talk about The Long and Winding Road, let’s hope it’s the Yellow Brick one and as BB’s post we don’t run out of juice whilst on it!!

GLA

Listening to and rereading CC phrases like 'advancing business development discussions around our pipeline of assets' does imply that the Sareum is successfully jumping through the hoops of the Big Bio playbook! SP’s comment that they are 'advancing business development discussions around our pipeline of assets' carries significantly more weight after hearing the execs on the call. Apparently data is the key!

Hi hot

I would like to think that with all of the success of other tyk2's and the trials of 737 in combo together with the Ai development and the news of a potential for one of our drugs to cross the bbb thet at least one major pharma has us on their radar.

If our BOD has had someone on board for the duration of the tox trials then they would have had their own ream analysing the results on a weekly if not daily basis.

This could be the time for due diligence, looking at what the whole Sareum package is worth before entering into discussions of a value for onlicense or takeover.

Looking at todays fundamentals of trading it looks like the mm's either dropped the price to take out someone's stop loss to pick up some cheap shares before any news or possibly some warrants being exercised.

If we get into discussions on here chaps please be minfull of replying to a conversation with a negative header as some will use the opportunity to stir the pot.

Hello Victor

Bailiff, I don’t think we’re actually that far apart.

You’re right that until the company announces something, nobody knows for certain. That’s true of every AIM stock.

Where I disagree is with the idea that discussing funding risk is somehow irrelevant. Investors should constantly assess the probability of future events, not just react after they’re announced. If we only discussed facts that had already been RNS’d, there’d be very little point in having an investor forum.

As for my posting history, you’re absolutely right that I’ve raised funding concerns before. That’s because Sareum has repeatedly needed to raise capital over the years, and funding has always been one of the key risks in investing here. It’s hardly a controversial observation.

What has changed now is that the company appears to have a shorter runway than we’ve historically seen, despite previously adopting a very conservative approach to cash management. Combined with the recent price action, I think it’s reasonable to question whether a placing is becoming more likely. That’s an opinion, not a prediction.

If non-dilutive funding arrives, I’ll be delighted to have been overly cautious. But I’d rather discuss a genuine investment risk before the event than pretend it doesn’t exist until after the RNS lands.

Good luck to everyone invested.

They can't much longer without some cash raising. Hopefully they've got a plan.

Maybe that bloody 747 might actually prove useful for once.

May well be just people being bored of waiting.

If significant news is not due until year end it’s certainly a share for the resilient!

Edging forward?

Another poor week

No volume, absolutely no FOMO and SP down.

Great sense of humour though.

Hi HBD,

The 140 days is 16 weeks plus the second group recovery of up to 4 weeks - then euthanasia, with necropsy and Histopathology to follow is my understanding which could be 6-10 weeks, GLP being the driver on this.

I’m open to different opinions, but, I’m being pragmatic to the BoD ensuring everything is “best” rather than “rushed”.

GLA

Hi PCS - taking 11th Feb as the notional start date, 140 days takes us to 1st July so possible completion RNS before the end of next week?

I'm hopeful this month's CC will allude to increased enquiries re 1801, either from Tim's US trip or referrals from the US company trying to market our wares.

Until solid data appears from the tox trial I'm not sure what the CC might be able to include, further progress with Receptor and/or 1802 maybe?

* mid June

Hi potnak, I posted back in June that we would need to go to Day 140, Desamax articulately expanded on that and hence my acknowledgement and recommendation of his post.

Sift through and there’s many a good informative post on here and I tend to follow those these days along with a small group shareholders off bb!

It’s still binary, but, very slowly hopefully we are progressing in the right direction 🤞

Enjoy the sun.

GLA

GL

Mine to, PC. I've always gone with JR's 6 months but pretty sure someone here reported that SP had said 16 weeks plus a month. Don't fancy scrolling back through 1000's of posts to find it. I'm now thinking that Desa's post was quite near the mark. And that they will RNS the completion when the top line results are known and that could be the first couple of weeks in July. We will still need to wait for the data package though.

Yeah and bringing on two strikers in the 91st minute sums up the manager's mentality

Doesn't help when you give goals away

Well the Scotland result was a positive 🤣

Agree potnak, Edison says it as it is , it’s informative and gives you the opportunity to go off and do you your own research, if you care to do so.

GLA

And if it's 1 out of 3, we're going for the positive RNS right? 😉

By jove, that's a good find...

The real advantage of putting this info out there is when big industry sites like Endpoints or Fierce Pharma pick it up. That’s where the bigger investors will be checking..

Also stumbled across the link below. The host website claims "JoVE is the world-leading producer and provider of science videos with the mission to improve scientific research and education. Millions of scientists, educators and students at thousands of universities, colleges, hospitals and biopharmaceutical companies worldwide use JoVE for their research, teaching and learning."

https://visualize.jove.com/42324886-first-in-human-phase-i-randomized-safety-pharmacokinetic-food-effect-and-pharmacodynamic-study-of-a-tyrosine-kinase-2janus-kinase-1-inhibitor-sdc-1801

Just had a look at the metrics tab for the 1801 paper on the Wiley online library - https://wiley.altmetric.com/details/198437358#score

"Altmetric has tracked 33,007,898 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric."

Still early days but I'm sure TM is busy in San Diego getting the word out.

The Lakes - you wouldn’t have it any other way 😉

GLA

Yes, I'm not expecting anything from this week but if TM can get some follow up meetings booked in, It'll be a successful visit.

The funding question is a drag on the SP, I think. I hope there is a plan that isn't just wait and see.

The Lakes weekend was great. The near 18 hours of constant rain, gave way to glorious sunshine for Saturday and Sunday. Lots of younger club members now see it as a good way to spend the weekend. I came back broken, where everything ached and I'm covered in midge bites. All good though.

Potnak, as good a view as any!

Trust you enjoyed The Lakes.

GLA

Hi PC. My view is we have an interested party but no exclusivity so TM is there to add more interest into the pool. We know there's is a wait for the full data do we me as well let more see what we have so far.

I guess Tim will pass on any questions regarding numbers to SP. Just say, "what do you really think it's worth.

Just looked in and saw Krone’s earlier post regarding above has disappeared - not sure why, so link is below for those interested.

https://www.edisongroup.com/research/peer-reviewed-validation-for-sdc-1801/BM-3586/

@potnak, my thinking to - for me SP would have been in San Diego if “Contractural” potential, the BoD are sticking to their declared pathway, be nice if they could “flip” SRA737, but, we wait and see!!

GLA

Hopefully ! Just checked and receptor AI are in the partnering area as well.

I don't believe Tim is presenting. He's I'm the partnering area. Hopefully with back to back meetings.

Is it asking too much to get guest appearances from someone at receptor AI on our platform with Tim ? I'm hoping Stephen Parker has orchestrated a roadshow of sorts ! Maybe our american agency flying the flag for a partner for sra 737

Whilst id like a little step up in the SP. I am more interested in the chipping away of all the little milestones that need to be reached to get a deal. Most of the market will catch up once they already missed out on a multi bag, a perfectly valid strategy for protecting against losses. I'm here for the big one though. I don't think a 10 bag from here is out of the question within a year.

The most important point is that Sareum have something to discuss/present that is not just “sales talk”. Independent peer review is an important validation of the science and moves Sareum sharply into focus. Add to that the 737 publications and I think Sareum is now a serious consideration for most large Pharmaceuticals.

I agree

Whether it was coincidental or not, it’s been a long time coming ( first muted March 2025 ) and most welcome as it now validates what the BoD have been saying and is open knowledge to the general market - so for me, another tick box on the stated pathway of the BoD.

GLA

It’s hardly out the blue, it’s on the day after it was first published. Did you want them to share it a month ago before it got written?

Not really. We've been waiting for it fur months. Looks like it was timed to land near the San Diego conference. It also implies that the dosing was successful. The barker just hasn't caught up yet.

Seems a strange out of the blue rns yesterday especially as now follow up

Hi Jonneo - sorry for slow response. Yes I was implying that it was a bit orchestrated. Great bit of PR timing! I am sure that, as it is now visible both sides of the Atlantic, we may start to see greater awareness and other media outlets picking up on the news - no bad thing IMO.

I now see that it was accepted on 27th may .

Hi HBD. how is 27th May significant ? I can find no reference to that date.

Hi Jonneo - My own guess is they knew they could strategically delay publishing from 27th May by just waiting a few weeks to pay the fee for open-access.

Hi Lazarus. Are you suggesting that the board could have steered the publication of the peer review to coincide with our trip and presence in San Diego ? I.e asked for it's release now rather than say , 2 weeks ago if it was ready then ? If they could legally request that delay then they've played a blinder ! Let's hope the stars align more favourably for us from now on in .

Thanks desamax. Appreciated . Hopefully get another rns confirming the end of this current trial.

Celtic, yes today is about the Ausie trial the latest Tox study is in JR words "ongoing.

Dr John Reader, Chief Scientific Officer of Sareum, commented: "The publication of the Phase 1 data in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology provides independent scientific validation of the strong clinical profile of SDC-1801, including good tolerability, a pharmacokinetic profile consistent with once-daily oral dosing, and clear evidence of target engagement through dose-dependent reductions in established inflammatory biomarkers."

"These biomarker findings are predictive of SDC-1801's potential efficacy in patients and reinforce our confidence in SDC-1801's potential as a differentiated therapy for autoimmune diseases. With the Phase 2-enabling toxicology programme well underway, we are focused on translating this clinical evidence into the next stage of development."

Hi there,

The data release today is from the recent trial that was on going now? I thought the recent trial was on animals? Is this today published today from the one done in Australia.

Thanks .

More up and downs than the proverbial who ers drawers

Would have thought that this warrants more than the briefest of tweets….

https://x.com/sparksinsurrey/status/2069045624914301281?s=46&t=_cUs6qcowyQbbF4MoPYSCw

Hi Bobbler not sure JR would have been able to use “independent” by NOMAD if it wasn’t!

Dr John Reader, Chief Scientific Officer of Sareum, commented: "The publication of the Phase 1 data in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology provides independent scientific validation of the strong clinical profile of SDC-1801, including good tolerability, a pharmacokinetic profile consistent with once-daily oral dosing, and clear evidence of target engagement through dose-dependent reductions in established inflammatory biomarkers."

@HBD good research on the review, yet to read in full and expect as with any review that certain “negatives” are raised as part of the script.

A good day at the office in my opinion fwiw.

GLA

Hi Bobbler - yes, it's peer reviewed. This might help you:

https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/13652125/publish-with-british-journal-of-clinical-pharmacology.html

and

https://authors.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/open-access/about-our-fully-gold-open-access-journals/index.html

Wiley Open Access journals uphold stringent peer review standards while enhancing efficiency:

All research articles are reviewed by at least two suitably qualified experts

Editors-in-Chief make final publication decisions based on the reviews provided

Editorial Boards provide insight, advice and guidance to the Editors-in-Chief generally and assist on decision making on specific submissions

Managing Editors and Editorial Assistants support the peer review process, ensuring the integrity of the peer review process while delivery rapid and efficient handling

Decisions on referred manuscripts are based on the high-quality peer review conducted by supporting journals, with Editors having the option to seek additional reviews as needed

Just playing devils advocate here.

Is it actually an independent peer reviewed paper?, as by their own admission The authors confirm that the Principal Investigator for this paper is Sam Francis and that he had direct clinical responsibility for patients.

From my understanding he was running the trial.

By definition, a scientist or Principal Investigator (PI) cannot peer review their own trial results. Peer review requires evaluation by an objective, independent expert in the same field who was not involved in conducting the specific study.

Whilst the publication ties in nicely with the start of the Bio Convention, has anyone else considered the choice of date MIGHT also be a solid indication that the tox study results (as far as they can be known), are top notch? The manuscript was finally accepted on 27th May so the BoD could have paid the open-access publication fee back then but they appear to have waited. Was it to give them the option of waiting for preliminary results of the tox study and if things looked bad, they could say stuff the publication fee and focus on 737?

Having read the paper, the only major thing that leaps out to me as a potential issue (keep in mind I'm neither doctor or scientist), is "Sporadic cases of myalgia and rhabdomyolysis have also been observed with other JAK and TYK2 inhibitors underscoring the importance of continued surveillance for potential muscle toxicity in the early clinical development of SDC-1801."

(Rhabdomyolysis is a serious condition characterized by the breakdown of muscle tissue, leading to the release of harmful substances into the bloodstream, which can cause kidney damage. Symptoms include muscle pain, weakness, and dark-colored urine.)

The study notes, "One participant in the 100 mg OD SDC-1801 cohort had an elevated creatine phosphokinase (CPK) level of 237 U/l on day 6 of treatment and on directed questioning complained of mild low back pain; CPK rose to 9606 U/l by day 9. CPK decreased progressively and was within the normal range at the follow-up visit (day 24). Moderate rhabdomyolysis was diagnosed on day 6 and mild myalgia on day 8, which resolved on day 10. Both were considered probably related to SDC-1801, and the participant was withdrawn from treatment on day 9."

So it looks like keeping dosing to below 100mg should be safe.

The other point of interest for me was, "Administration of SDC-1801 over the dosing ranges was performed with differing combinations of SDC-1801 capsule strengths, and inspection of the SDC-1801 concentration time curves for each of the doses indicated that the 50 mg capsules delivered much lower SDC-1801 exposure than expected, exemplified by the 100 mg OD dose (Figure 3B). To better understand exposure related to the 50 mg capsule, an alternative capsule configuration was used in the 75 mg OD and 70 mg BID cohorts, replacing the 50 mg capsule with 5 × 10 mg capsules; it was clear that the 10 mg capsules provided better exposure than the 50 mg capsule." I'm in no doubt the anomaly can be addressed.

Regards.

Rather go for the buyout soon. We are getting long in the tooth. 20 years + and some f ups on the way...

Nah. They don't. An on license is a 'deal'. £2 to £3 a share is achievable with both options. A buyout, just gets there in one jump. Presuming no setbacks. The compounds will be worth 2 billion when phase 2 is completed. Possibly much more. A buyout now will be discounted for risk, accordingly.

They might decide to self fund but have already indicated that 1802 will be on licenced so why do that if there are other options?

They need to get through phase 2 before they do a deal . I can wait

At the AGM in December 2024 John R mentioned this happening

It has taken them a while to get it published.

However encouraging they have at least