RE: MarketScreener17 Nov 2024 11:26
"CC clearly says that AVA6000 wasn’t effective against most patients in P1a because doxorubicin isn’t very effective against those types of tumours."
Did CC actually say that? Where? It is true that in the early cohorts they were taking patients who had cancers that, according to the single research paper they were basing the inclusion decision on, had high- or mid-levels of FAP, irrespective of whether or not doxorubicin was effective against those cancer at the doses used (because of length of treatment and toxicity) in the clinic. However, the patients had been on previous treatment regimes and had metastasised and refractory cancers which would anyway make treatment with doxorubicin less effective than on naive cancers. In the later cohorts they pivoted to more susceptible cancers and earlier treatment as they honed in on indications for which AVA6000 could be taken forward for regulatory approval. One shouldn't get too hung up on the efficacy findings of this Phase 1a trial as a large part of it was about safety and tolerability and finding the appropriate dosing regimen to take into Phase 1b and then Phase 2, and that skewed the 'efficacy' findings, which is what Mr Cuddon decided to focus on in his hatchet job.
"Re timelines: no of course they aren’t set in stone. Most so far have slipped." Timelines have slipped in the past due to poor planning - strategy and financing - by amateurs (AS and TG) and delays by MHRA in starting C5 and again poor planning by Avacta in not initially including UK sites in the Q2W arm. And because timelines just can and do slip anyway. Experienced pharma people are now running the show so I have more faith in their timelines, which I think are cautious and, of course, take no account of possible partnerships taking on some of the work and associated costs.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
