Member Info for BuenaVista

If Arm 2 goes to 4 cohorts, it will NOT finish by end of Q2, more likely into Q4. That is the reality. That is why drug development takes so long. That is why drug prices have to be high to recover all the costs of development as well as the drugs that fail in trials, plus all the cost of running the company and paying a lot of highly skilled folk working in every aspect of running the company.

If there is a successful pivotal Phase 2 trial (highly likely) then there will not be a Phase 3, just post-marketting surveillance, which sales/licence revenue/royalties will obviously cover.

Well that's OK if you've got cash in those deep pockets. It's a long time till 6 April!

Yes, likely Q3 or Q4 I think Tim if they go the full 4 additional cohorts.

Tbh, I'm totally flumoxed. It just doesn't make any sense on any level except in the crazy world of the AIM gamblers' casino.

The RNS of 4th December stated: "Avacta's Chief Executive Officer, Alastair Smith, Chief Scientific Officer, Fiona McLaughlin and Consultant Chris Coughlin will present a detailed review of the AVA6000 clinical trial's Phase 1a data".

DETAILED review...

Given that the trial is "data rich", whatever that means... Are some trials just data average or data poor? - that's to say can't be assed (see, I'm learning LSE's funny little ***ing ways) to collect much data...

It seemed to me to be a summary rather than a detailed review showing the underlying data.

Opinions from our clinical research/trial experts welcomed.

So jam tomorrow. Take out at a 50% premium that traders would snatch at when the SP has slid to 80p?

Because AIM is full of gamblers and chancers with no patience just looking for a quick gain.

And great news that Dr Eggy is joining the Scientific Advisory Board.

Avacta are aiming for a pivotal Phase 2 trial so here you are: https://www.sofpromed.com/pivotal-clinical-trials-frequently-asked-questions

I was impressed. Very clear, concise and eloquent.

It's unclear to me how many cycles each patient in a cohort gets. I thought from the protocol that it was 2 (to get the PK, PD, safety and tolerability data), with further cycles possible post-cohort. If disease surveillance is done every 8 weeks for Arm2 then that implies post-cohort surveillance or, likely, that patients will get 4 cycles of treatment in the cohort. It also implies that they are now not particularly concerned about constantly monitoring the cancer like they were every six weeks (after every two 3-weekly cycles) for Arm1.

On the length of Arm2, I can see it taking most, if not all, of next year and that's possibly a contributing factor in today's share price drop.

Ay up, it's Dr Eggy in the house. All bow to his commanding expertise and chant the magic words: "FUD! FUD! FUD!"

Also, there is no discernable difference in the patients to be enrolled in both arms of this Phase 1a trial - i.e. not first line treatment in Arm2:

PHASE 1 POPULATION

• Patients with a diagnosis of known FAPhigh cancers, including sarcoma, pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, head and neck cancers

• Acceptable performance status (ECOG 0 or 1), adequate organ function and recovery from effects of prior therapies

• Prior therapy with any anthracycline limited to total cumulative dose of less than 350 mg/m2 doxorubicin or equivalent

Screening doesn't necessarily mean the trial has got the go-ahead. It could be in prepartion for the fortnightly trial starting - and I believe that's what the ambiguous wording means because there is no specific mention of that second arm being approved.

Tree shake? MMs dropping the SP to encourage selling so they can pick up cheap shares for the inevitable rise?

Doxorubicin has been used to shrink tumours prior to surgery, but that has only worked for as long as the doxorubicin is tolerated. This finding means there is potential to at least extend the time and the amount of tumour shrinkage.

LSR slow. Here it is

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/AVCT/als-6000-101-phase-1a-study-data/16249496

Https://www.google.com/search?q=define+titrate+medication

"Just suppose that a significant number of people have some FAP near healthy important organs."

IF that is deemed by people in the know (experts) to be an issue of concern AND IF there is no suitable diagnostic to determine where and how much FAP is in the body (including the TME as well of course) THEN there is always the option to titrate the medication until optimal benefit (therapeutic effect vs adverse reaction) is reached AND IF there is no significant FAP elsewhere THEN that would be whatever dose is standard of care for the particular cancer that the patient has.

See, it's all quite logical.