Member Info for Alpha-dog

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/is-delta-the-last-covid-super-variant
It would help if I added the link.

In the absence of substantive news on synairgen this makes interesting reading. Although not mentioned it is clear that scientifically synairgen may be the correct and lower risk therapeutic strategy.

I meant pre-order.

There have been large and illogical drops in share price over the last year. Logic always seems to prevail though. I’m holding tight and awaiting solid news. Everything points to successful P3. Expect wobbles and emotional investors until then.
Any possible positives on the near horizon? A pretty-order perhaps? I’m not holding my breath but as a clinician and scientist I know 2 things. 1) covid isn’t going away 2) if p3 comes out in the way everything is pointing health services and people the world over will benefit.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04385095
The at home trial was supposed also to be high risk patients.
The molnupiravir trial had 14% hospitalisation in placebo group in an “at risk group”.
Clearly SNGs at home at risk group not quite as at risk as either Pfizer or Merck. Both these pills need to be taken very early, within 5 days. SNG being marketed at hospital or just pre-hospital (in breathless). If results as good as phase 2 there will still be plenty of market and covid isn’t going away.

What is quite surprising is the high hospitalisation rate in the placebo group, at 7%. The SNG at home trial only had 3%. Any serious reviewer of this data from Pfizer’s drug should look very critically at this.

Thanks toneman. I’m still v upbeat about ITM. Their model is rapidly scalable. The world needs rapid scaling of this technology and there are just a handful of players.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jcb-heir-jo-bamford-in-driving-seat-of-1bn-green-hydrogen-fund-t7ps5l2b5
From2015
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150312005304/en/ITM-Power-plc-£4.9m-Strategic-Investment-by-JCB-in-ITM-Power

I’m new to this board but this may be if interest. Fortescue have penned 2 multi-billion hydrogen contracts, Australia and Argentina. They have also signed a multi-billion deal to sell hydrogen to JCB. Which hydrogen company does JCB have an interest in? You guessed it- ITM. Correct me if I’m wrong or if this has already been posted on this board but I’m expecting ITM to be named in relation to these massive green hydrogen contracts. Negotiations ongoing I expect.

Does anyone know how many people in Activ2 p2 had SNG? Apologies if daft question.

Rscorpio
Agreed. In addition this is no ordinary P3. It is against an active control group (ronapreve) with impressive data in out of hospital group (this study’s focus). To progress SNG must have had good efficacy as there would need to be a reasonable expectation of equivalent or superior results. The ACTIV2 trial team were clearly keen to keep SNG on board and tweaked the protocol to the suggestion of the SYnairgen team. It all looks good and may take time for this to be fully reflected in SP.
If successful in both ACTIV and Sprinter SNG should be in pole position as therapeutic. SP could go very high indeed. The target ramp up to production of 100k doses per month very realistic. Possible SP can be calculated on this basis and is looking good.

Is market manipulation of this type legal? It could be viewed as artificially keeping the price low in advance of a takeover?

Any way to get a question in to Sajad Javid? Might pique a little interest.

Excellent post Cam. This is fundamental to what Synairgen have been pointing out and explains the delay from Dr Castro’s first comment to imminent confirmation of progression to P3.

I think ACTIV2 p2 has been successful but the board are hesitant about progression to p3 because it is a multiple head to head study and they do not wish to risk this. Assuming SNG is effective (and the evidence to date supports this) why take the the risk of activ2 p3. There is a possibility that if not progressing that the data from p2 could be released but I suspect that is in the hands of the clinical trialists.
In the meantime p3 sprinter is progressing well.
Reaction to rns appears illogical.

Here’s my analysis of where we are.
1. COVID-19 is not going to go away. The nature of the virus and mutations means that vaccines and mabs, while effective will always be subject to playing catch-up. The present situation with near maximal vaccination of many populations with effective vaccines is about as good as it is ever going to be. Still we see breakthrough infections close to bringing hospitals and countries to their knees. Mabs as therapeutics only effective in those who are anybody negative ie the unvaccinated, previously unexposed or those without persistent antibody mediated immunity.
2. SNG appears on the evidence we have to be very effective. Being considered fir progression to P3 of activ2 is really sound evidence of efficacy. Activ2 has target recruitment if nearly 9000 patients. Ineffective treatments have been kicked out. The structure is such that license holders can decide not to go to P3. Remember p2 is placebo controlled, p3 is against regeneron. I don’t think we know the fine detail of this. I would think it needs to be a level playing field for SNG board to agree to go through ie not just antibody negative patients- that would bias towards mabs in outcome. I think the board are currently thinking carefully about this.
3. SPRINTER trial is 80% recruited. That is incredible. COVID is such a fast moving target that it can be difficult to setup and recruit to. The November final recruitment is only 1 month off target.

It is of coarse not a foregone conclusion but there is clearly going to be a big COVID therapeutic market ongoing. All the objective evidence we have is positive for SNG. This is just another blip on the way, based on about as much evidence as the last blip in April. I’m holding firm for all the reasons outlined above,

I’m new to posting on this forum but have been following for some time. I think the board will think very carefully before progressing to p3 of activ2 which is comparing SNG to regeneron. Regeneron has impressive pre-hospital evidence. Even to still be considered for this SNG must have a reasonable chance of being as good or better in this setting. The p2 results must therefore be good and adding to the evidence we already have of efficacy.
Today’s initial reaction in price fall therefore appears overdone but not unexpected.
Slightly disappointing that P3 in hospital recruitment slower than planned but at least clarity on read out.