Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone here.
The early Cuban national experience with intramuscular beta interferon 2b described in this June pre-print is a reminder of the generic efficacy of interferons in COVID-19. I don’t know if it has yet been published formally but it informally validates the case for the use of interferon, however administered, in the disease. The SNG thesis is that beta 1a is more effective and delivery by inhalation is more directly targeted and less prone to systemic side effects than injected interferon.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.29.20109199v1
Upup, I kind of agree with most of what you see in your inspirational post although I think the Trump angle is a bit of a stretch – hope I’m wrong! What beats me is why this amazing opportunity is attracting so little investment interest. Is it that there is very little understanding in the mainstream pi and maybe II communities of what we have here, so very little buying pressure? Is it that there are comparatively small numbers of liquid shares in the market - not enough to generate a meaningful market? Or are there dark mm forces at play holding the sp down at least in the short term? Maybe a bit of all 3.
We shouldn’t underestimate the significance of this development. To state the obvious, it would not be permitted unless there was acceptance of a compelling case for efficacy and safety. It’s like, “We know this works and is safe but have to wait for the regulatory machinery run its course. Meantime, you can offer this drug to any hospitalised patient in the UK and EU as long as their doctor wishes to use it with some paperwork around It’s use”. There will be a lot of lay and professional publicity about this over the next few days and I think that the take-up across Europe will be substantial. It is, in my opinion, a huge step forward. How this is reflected in the mad world of AIM in the short term is anybody’s guess!
Sleep well WedME. Been there, done that. Nothing like the feel of that duvet after a weekend on. At last, not only are all the pieces joining up but, as someone said here yesterday, the penny is beginning to drop in a big way. Hopefully, by the time you wake up we will be in clear blue territory..
Please forgive this pedantry but it is important: “Inhaler” and “nebuliser” are not synonyms. SNG001 is administered by a nebuliser, not by an inhaler. An inhaler, as typically used by people with asthma, is a pressurised apparatus that needs to be “fired” by the user in synchrony with inspiration (breathing in). A nebuliser produces a mist that is breathed in somewhat like the way one might use a vaping pipe if one was stupid enough to indulge in the habit. Nebulised medicines can be administered to sedated or ventilated patients with a bit of ingenuity in a way that a drug in an inhaler can’t. So, let’s keep to the term “nebuliser” when talking about SNG001.
Not an issue for SNG. Although Varona intend to test their bronchodilator / anti-inflammatory product in COVID, the product has no read-across mode of action In comparison with SNG001. Furthermore, the mode of administration is by pressurised inhaler and not by nebuliser. The former requires a degree of learning in how to use the device as well as being pretty well a nonstarter for a patient who is sedated. There are no negatives in this story for SNG and if there is a positive it is further confirmation that pharma is yet again demonstrating a belief that direct administration of medicines through the airways has distinct benefits over other modes of administration.
Roche’s ACTEMRA damned with faint praise:
https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/roche-actemra-covid-19-positive-study-results/585490/
With all the high quality research posted here over the weekend, confirming the scientific rational for SG001 being a game-changer in the treatment of COVID-19, I feel it is inevitable that we will see a steady downward drift in the sp tomorrow morning!
Great find, Monticello. This article, published just 5 days ago in the uber-prestigious journal, Nature, draws a clear, evidence-based cause and effect relationship between a deficiency of Type I interferon (caused be the viral infection) and the onset of the severe second stage illness. In its last sentence the authors signal the potential benefit of interferons as a therapeutic strategy.
It all depends whether the intention is to seek publication of the in-hospital only results or the full study including the home treatment arm. I am increasingly of the view that it is the latter, otherwise we would have had peer review by now. If I am
right then it will be a while yet As I am not aware that the home based arm had concluded yet. By the way, the peer review process is relevant only in the context of journal publication of findings. As others have repeatedly said, pharma and regulators are not sitting waiting for peer review outcomes.
I don’t know if this has been mentioned on here before but I have wondered since the headline results were announced whether the companies intention was to wait until the end of the home trial before completing the analysis for publication of a single integrated paper, In which case we shouldn’t expect to see peer review results for quite some time yet. Maybe someone knows for sure that this is wrong.
Nothing new about the Amiens trial. It’s been on the radar for a couple of months. But it’s an open label, single centre In-hospital, oxygen-supplementary-only study not yet recruiting. Who knows what the formulation of their IFN is in terms of pH, etc. Is it patented? Can it be patented? Lots of questions. Maybe SNG and/or their patent lawyers know the answers. Ditto the significant IIs of recent days/weeks. It is not impossible that this study will never get off the ground, let alone be completed - unless, of course, the French government/EU decide to weigh In with support.
Hopefully we will get an update of the RNS including the missing p value in:
“Over the treatment period, lung antiviral responses to viral infection were significantly enhanced in patients receiving SNG001 compared to those on placebo, as assessed by measuring increases in the gene expression of interferon beta-dependent antiviral biomarkers MX1 (p=“
Rather an important fact to be inadvertently omitted!