The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
As a reviewer, one is normally given around a month to review a paper, before they start to chase you up. It's quite a lengthy business - you have to re-work the data, to ensure that the results are stated correctly, check all the individual references, given in the bibliography, and then critique the article. The more important the paper, the more intensively one tends to work on it. Although, as a reviewer you are usually anonymous, your own reputation is nevertheless a bit on the line, & the reviews are later read as thoroughly as the paper itself. The job is given to people who are experts in the particular field, who, by definition, already have pretty busy professional lives, & are possibly involved in trials of their own. So time has to be found. Usually at a weekend. My guess is that the authors have by now agreed on a draft, & sent it off to a journal. Since this is a pretty hot topic, maybe 1-2 wks to review, & then the authors have a choice to include the reviewers' points, or justify ignoring them, before a final draft is sent off. This then goes for a final quick review, before (hopefully) acceptance & publication. I used to reckon about 6 months to get a paper into print - but, given the importance & topicality here, we could be looking at around 3 weeks left in the process.
Absolutely right - Interferon is a powerful drug - been around a long time and never really found a mainstream clinical application, largely because of the side effects. Which is why I initially hesitated to invest, back when. But topical application - i.e., by nebuliser, gets around the problems you encounter when you administer it systemically. It's just the clinical model I'm not sure about - a nebulised solution doesn't necessarily behave like a gas - i.e., it doesn't necessarily penetrate into all parts of the lung. The larger particles deposit out in the naso-pharynx & trachea. Seen it often - we used to use radioactive aerosols for lung scanning. This effect is worse in COPD & the elderly. So I was quite surprised that the results were as good as they were!
So....the process for publishing such an important paper is...
1 A lead author writes it, probably in collaboration with a close colleague
2 It gets circulated amongst the other authors for their comment
3 The comments are debated, & a final draft is written
4 It gets sent off to a journal
5 The journal checks it, to make sure it conforms to their editorial guidelines
6 It gets sent off to 2-3 reviewers
7 Reviewers comments are transmitted to the authors for comment
8 Authors submit a final version
9 PUBLICATION!
My guess is that we are about on step 3 at the moment...
I know we're in the thick of it, & it seems to be getting worse, but an effective home-test for disease (? AVCT) & early treatment (? SNG) could really be transformational, & quite quickly. Big prizes for the country that gets its economy up & running first. And all those recovery stocks, going "cheep".
This is going to be a whole lot of fun to watch! Remember that there is no homogeneity across the NHS for their infotech, so this new "platform' - basically an app - will have to interface with a range of operating systems. Some NHS Trusts are still running Windows XP, for example, with good reason. Others are Unix-based, etc. And then you have a myriad of different PACS systems. Full marks to the CEO who persuaded Han**** to sign on the dotted line! And Grayling nowhere in sight!
You could well be right, Sparkle. Short answer is, I suspect, nobody knows. They're ramping up 'flu vaccination to relieve pressure on the NHS (less contentious than discharging their elderly "bed-blockers" into nursing homes - that was pretty unforgivable), & also, I guess, to prevent confusion between Covid & 'flu. Although no-one in government has actually uttered those dread words, it is reasonably evident that Covid has become endemic within our population.
Not sure about the science around "normal" flu occurring in coincidence with Covid. It is theoretically possible that they might compete - i.e., "normal" flu raises the interferon levels in your respiratory tract, inhibiting development of Covid. A sort of DIY SNG001!
For them, the home trials were the main thing, initially. Nipping the disease in the bud. The hospital trials were a later addition, & I get the impression they were a bit reluctant - a later stage in the disease, and dilution of their research effort. I think they were pretty stunned when the results emerged - to achieve clinical significance in a study of only 100 people, with multiple end-points and lots of clinical variables - is going some! I think that the most that they were hoping for was to detect some clinical trends, worthy of more investigation. But if the home trials indicate that beta-interferon stops the evolution of disease at an early stage - fantastic! Although we still need effective home-testing kits (? AVCT) and common sense on the part of our lack-lustre politicians & certain sections of the public.
Absolutely! - For Holgate, it's about his clinical reputation. A broad-based placebo-controlled blinded Phase III clinical trial. It's not about the money. So no indiscriminate clinical use, American-style, from which no clinical data can be lifted. A cure for Covid is like the Holy Grail - it's worth at least a "K" - possibly even a Nobel prize. I kid you not. And the thanks of a grateful world. This is his mental horizon.
Thought about this, in view of the recent rise, but then, you've got to think.......what are they flogging?
1 - A lesion-detection system, doubtless based on detecting small inhomogeneities in the image matrix. Done to death.
2 - A PACS system -.... Oh Christ - not another one!
3 - An app, for downloading clinical data/images onto your smart phone/ipad. Basically, not worth a lot. Your home-based computer geek could probably write one in a week or so. Just because Han**** decides to invest, doesn't mean someone with a full set of neurones is obliged to do so!
So not for me. IMHO, of course!
I agree - it's not the money with Holgate - it's his mission in life. I remember him when he was on the med. registrar rotation, on "D" level at SGH, back in the '70's - basically, he's still there. Pretty dull, but persistent chap. Would come over to the dept occasionally to discuss the emergency lung scans that we used to do - usually around 5.00 PM, when we were looking to head off. Didn't twig that work wasn't necessarily the most important thing in our lives. You can bet he will want to see this through. to the end.
Totally agree - massive upside to this share. Nevertheless, have re-aligned slightly , in favour of OVB, which is showing signs of activity after months of torpor, God knows why, but RNS re product licence is months overdue. .
Difficult to get precise matching of all the clinical variables in a small study such as this - I think people generally accept this. Assuming the results are borne out in clinical practice - and I can't see anything else on the horizon at the moment - there has to be a "K" in this for Holgate.
"Large-scale clinical trial" - means they're going to bring it into clinical use ASAP, under close monitoring, of course. They will want to extract max. clinical data. With 79% improvement, placebo group is probably not justified. The US will also be desperate to get their hands on it.
Incidentally, in the longer term, SNG001 is pretty broad-spectrum - i.e., potential use is not confined to Covid-19 virus alone. Upside is enormous, unless something better comes along. Bizarre to say, but it may be cheap, even at current SP.