Member Info for Bermudashorts

1) There is no talk of 'no risk' - none whatsoever. You're the only person mentioning it. 2) We know clinical trials can fail - any sort of clinical trial. Nobody has said they can't and nobody has said Scancell's trials are guaranteed to succeed. 3) The drug and the reason for the failure are very important if you want to understand the risk and therefore make sound investment decisions. 4) I'm genuinely not attacking you but I do find it patronising to be lectured on the fact that clinical trials can fail and how to trade by top slicing as if you were teaching us all something new. It would be different if anybody had disagreed with your points or was arguing the opposite. They're not!!

Re. your 15.59 - Nobody has said that it is a bad thing. With respect it is slightly patronising to point out over and again that clinical trials can fail and that you can de-risk by top slicing. By the way, The IMM and FARN phase III trial failures are not appropriate examples here. They are in completely different diseases with completely different issues. I can go into detail if you like but the issues with both trials and the unexpected placebo response are not relevant here. Also I believe Faron had previously carried out a phase I/II in only 37 patients before going straight into a phase III.

Elegance, Some good points in your 16.58 post. There is no doubt that the FDA are keen to approve new, effective and safe lupus treatments. They've been working with lupus patient advocacy groups and are fully aware of the urgent need for such treatments. However, not sure it's a good idea to raise expectations of marketing approval on the basis of this trial - results had to be unequivocal for that to be the case. The FDA are not going to approve on safety alone and the Lupuzor trial didn't reach statistical significance on efficacy. Best case scenario for P140 peptide in lupus IMO is that another trial will be needed in SLE and probably in much larger numbers of patients. I believe that Sylviane Muller had some good preclinical data for P140 in other autoimmune and inflammatory diseases and who knows, perhaps that's the way forward? Or perhaps drilling down into the data will produce some results in sub groups of patients that may be worth exploring further and be enough to persuade someone to take Lupuzor on? So I can see there could be a bull case here but it shouldn't be based on FDA approval. All just IMO of course.

posts crossed

Link below. I'm not sure if there are any standard timescales but the EPO issued a decision to grant letter within about 3 or 4 weeks of submission of the translations. https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP13750368&lng=en&tab=doclist

Kilburn & Strode have now filed translations of the claims for the original Moditope patent application together with the appropriate fee. For anyone who may have missed it, the EPO has already issued an intention to grant and these were the final requirements to allow them to go ahead. Hopefully patent should now be granted shortly.

' it might even get a name' Any suggestions?

AP101 trial has been updated on the Clinical Trials Register to show new trial centres have been opened in Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Hungary and Singapore. Good stuff.

Some nice coverage for Angle in article below. http://www.expressbpd.com/healthcare/happening-now/research-demonstrates-parsortix-workflow-for-culturing-circulating-tumour-cells-for-in-vitro-drug-testing/400443/

Yes, sounds reasonable. The unknown is the delivery system. As no mention has been made of any agreement with Ichor, I guess that they're likely to go with the nano-vesicle system (whatever that may be!!)

That's preclinical

Even IF trial had reached statistical significance and even IF company intended to submit NDA to FDA would love to know how marketing approval and launch would by physically possible in 2018. Full results, Clinical Trial Report and completion of NDA would take several months even with rolling review. Then add 2 months for FDA to decide whether or not to accept NDA and another 6 months for fast track review. Utterly impossible.

Wow - a real heavyweight appointment - President of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and AstraZeneca UK. Hopefully just what Redx need to restore credibility and drive future strategy. Time will tell but hard to imagine a CEO with a more impressive CV. Worth having a quick read of this article covering her appointment as President of the ABPI. http://www.pharmatimes.com/news/az_lisa_anson_elected_as_abpi_president_1180782

Just wanted to comment on your 12.01. As you say, unless the design has changed, the plan for the SCIB1 combination will be to treat 6 patients as a safety run-in. All will be dosed at 8mg from outset as this has already been proven safe in the previous trial. The need for the safety run-in is that it's the first time the combination of Keytruda and SCIB1 has been tested in humans so even though both are safe alone, they need to be sure the combination is OK too. Results will be available in H1 next year. Part 2 of the trial will then continue with results due in H2 2019. It's worth remembering that this is an open label trial with patients who have measureable tumour in situ. Scancell have stated that 12 or more RECIST responses (based on measurement of size of tumours) are needed to consider the combination worthy of further development. If SCIB1 performs well then that target may be met before the end of the trial. I'm not suggesting for a second that the trial would end sooner or results be made available earlier (they won't) but we may know much earlier that the trial is successful.

errmm - ImmunoBody, Moditope, Glycolipid and ??? What's the 4th? Did you read the link? - some pretty strong stuff in there

I assume this is the platform Scancell have licensed http://uon.technologypublisher.com/technology/19225

I know where it originated from - see my posts with links to NUTAC earlier in the week. Going to leave it here with final comment that we don't know whether or not there is a further modification on top of this. Best wait and see.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Has been a long day and am being a bit slow here. At the 2017 AGM they said they were working on patents for a new modification (singular), they didn't specify that it was stress induced and now they've announced licensing platform and mAbs from UoN based on the modification of glycosylation. I have no idea whether glycosylation of cancer proteins is stress induced or not but as Scancell have not said that the new modification is stress induced, I'm not sure it's relevant. It doesn't matter and I guess only time will tell but for now this may be it - and it's enough!!!

OO circular is on Scancell's website here http://www.scancell.co.uk/file-manager/PDFs/scancell-circular-190418.pdf