Member Info for BuenaVista

My, admittedly recent, observations about tie-ups with big pharma (short of buy outs) are that there is a big initial SP spike, then down a bit, then up again and then the SP slowly declines over time (until further news). Caribou Biosciences (CRBU)/Pfizer is a good example and it's just starting this week with Verve Therapeutics (VERV)/Lilly. I would put this down to a preponderance of traders buying in and then taking profits, leaving LTHs frustratedly down on their investment and impatiently selling at a loss.

There's enough there to start a rumour on Twitter!

At last! A call for peas

I don't know the reason for today's rise, but congrats to all those already invested. Unfortunately I have to wait until I have some cash in my maxed out ISA and SIPP before I can buy in so of course I'm hoping for a modest retreat over the coming weeks. So frustrating!

Thank you for this summary.

"And I may be wrong on this, but aren't all the patients already resistant to doxorubicin to some extent, so the fact that there is no progression and shrinkage in one is even more impressive."

The cancers selectable for the Phase 1a trial all contain FAP in the stroma. All patients have had no, or very little, prior doxorubicin or other anthracyline treatment but doxorubicin should be efficacious for all the cancers. It's just that doxorubicin isn't standard of care for them, except for STS and use in others in combination therapy or to shrink tumours prior to main treatment. That's not because doxorubicin is ineffective; it's because doxorubicin has limited use due to cardiotoxicity and there are other, clinically better, options for treatment.

Eggy wrote: "I've no idea if it's significant but will await larger clinical trials to see whether it turns out to be an issue or no."

The research scientists and clinicians with their vast knowledge and experience will be on top of this and if they regard it as an issue they will monitor it and if deemed serious will EXCLUDE such patients from trials.

This thread should really have stopped there.

Now Eggy, you little soldier, what's your next bit of FUD?

There a few reasons why Avacta release data prior to the conclusion of the 1a trial.

If one thinks that the FDA and MHRA required a full data disclosure of C1-C4 (an end of term report, if you like) for approval to continue up to C7 and 400mg/m², then the same would surely be the case for a continuation of Phase 1a as fortnightly dosing.

Also, as there have been patients responding clinically in this safety and tolerability study, then now, after C6, might be a good time to publicise the trial, particularly if a case study could be included.

Another reason might be to provide tasty data morsels to the many pharma companies showing interest but needing convincing with hard, verified data.

I've got to say that no one should now be surprised to see tumour shrinkage after administration of AVA6000 as it was known that doxorubicin has been shown to be present in tumours at therapeutic levels and it is known that doxorubicin shrinks tumours - it is used in some treatments as a neoadjuvant therapy before the main treatment (surgery, radiotherapy or other chemo), an example being in breast cancer before surgery. What may be surprising is shrinkage of tumours that doxorubicin hasn't been seen to shrink before or continuing shrinkage after the time that doxorubicin resistance might be expected to kick in. We, here, haven't been given the information needed to determine whether these are the case.

I don't think that, because an executive from one pharma company expressed an opinion on social media, that pharma company is the favoured partner. That's not a logical conclusion. Interested certainly, but there will likely be 20 or more interested companies. And 20 licensing deals would be ...blowing the bloody doors off the share price.

Another article: Fibroblast activation protein is expressed by rheumatoid myofibroblast-like synoviocytes (https://arthritis-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/ar2080 )

I'm not really understanding your point B2HS2L. FAP is involved in tissue remodelling (repairing/growing tissue).

Article: Fibroblast activation protein in remodeling tissues ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22834826/ )

It's an issue but not imho a big problem. And anyway, problems are challenges and challenges are opportunities.

Treating arthritic cancer patients with AVA6000 is a thing but it will be a subset of patients and I'm sure there are work arounds, even if they have to involve trials to devise efficacious strategies for STS, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, etc. for AVA6000 and any other pre|CISION anticancer drug.

Along with juveniles and those recovering from major surgery, patients with arthritis are actively and quite rightly excluded from this Phase 1a trial by this exclusion criterion: "Has a significant, uncontrolled, concomitant disease that could affect compliance with the protocol."

Some strategies for treating arthritic patients with a pre|CISION anticancer drug suggest themselves such as: remove the cause of inflammation (bed rest?, induced coma?); reduce the inflammation (steroidal and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs?); and combination with a bifunctional drug (the anti-arthritic and anticancer drug, methotrexate?)

The research scientists and clinicians with their vast knowledge will be well on top of this and I don't see it as a significant problem.

"Actually I'm wondering whether FAP expression in arthritic joints is something that might have implications should these patients undergo AVA6000 treatment for cancer. "

I would say yes, it would, and would be a good case for diagnostics to identify what and where FAP is. For the naysayers, do I really need to quote the abstract of the 2015 US9737556B2 pre|CISION patent, for you again?

"So does the precision platform crest an opportunity to essentially “steal” the science of others - i.e. taking toxins that are under patent by others and repackaging them in to a different substance that is essentially the same when activated but different when administered? Is that considered a different substance or still protected by patent?"

I assume from Bachovchn's approach and what AS has said that only patented drugs where the IP does not claim "and prodrugs thereof" are fair game for pre|CISIONing.

🤣🤣🤣

I just had a look myself. I wonder whether they've had their first date yet.

For me, Fiona doesn't give enough information to make a comparison between the two. Pharmacokinetics is very maths intensive and she only talks in general terms.

Lots of answers around this question here: https://www.google.com/search?q=drug+half+life+definition

Odd isn't it that AFC has not progressed in 17 (SEVENTEEN) years whilst all the other hydrogen fuel cell companies have... not progressed either. Something to think about the why is that perhaps?

Ignored