Member Info for BuenaVista

A dithering country that has decided to invest in nuclear power stations, built by China so they clearly have an eye on energy security 🙄, that will come online in the 2030s - at the earliest! - when investing in renewables could provide incremental zero carbon returns starting from now. Just incredible. These 🤡🤡🤡 need to be voted out at the next election.

Replying to Kong1 whost response was in another thread:

My point was that if AVA6000 at, say, 360mg/m² (imagine that!!!!) every 3 weeks can be shown to have at least the same beneficial PK profile as weekly doxorubicin at the regulatory approved doxorubicin dosage of 20mg/m² (think about that!!!!!) then adapting the Phase 1b protocol (which will need to be done anyway) SHOULD be fairly straightforward based on the principle that after one week all AVA6000 and all doxorubicin will have been eliminated so equivalence can be clearly shown between what would be weekly AVA6000 and what is weekly doxorubicin and there would be no further side effects from (delayed-release but not beyond one week) weekly AVA6000. Phew!

I think the technical term is Phase I/II.

Just take a look at Woody1499's posting history.

Only ever responds to bashers or threads about bashers in order to keep the disruptive threads active.

Woody1499 is a member of the basher crew.

The way that Avacta have not publicly dismissed the possibility of weekly dosing of AVA6000 in Phase 1b rather indicates to me that this is something they are seriously considering. The protocol for Phase 1b will need to be rewritten if there are to be any changes from what is currently set out and to do that the new protocol would need to be agreed with the MHRA, the FDA and possibly the EMA and/or Swiss regulatory authority if any trials are planned to be carried out on the continent.

Weekly doxorubicin exists as a treatment option, with clinical trials dating from the 1980s. Generally, cardiotoxicity is regarded as being lower (with maximum cumulative lifetime exposure I've seen reported as up to 700mg/m² vs 450-550mg/m² for 3-weekly doxorubicin) and fewer and less severe side-effects.

There is also a change in thinking by the FDA away from the necessity of going in hard and fast with the maximum possible dosage and towards giving a lower dose that has fewer side effects, can be given for longer and has th epossibility of a better outcome. (Most un-American, one might think!)

Here's an intro to the body of evidence regarding weekly doxorubicin: https://www.google.com/search?q=weekly+low+dose+doxorubicin

If the data show that systemic levels of 3-weekly AVA6000 in Phase 1a are as low as or lower than the equivalent levels of weekly doxorubicin from those clinical trials, then I think we'd be on for that protocol change and that would speed up Phase 1b and hence also commercial exploitation...

Usual Hurstbot 💩

Get away, give your fingers a little holiday Terry. I hear the Isle of Mute is very pleasant at this time of year.

Did anyone else get these, dating from 19/04/23?

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/news-stories/redress-woodford-equity-income-fund-investors

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-announces-plan-deliver-significant-redress-woodford-investors

"If the proposed redress amount of £235 million is paid in full then investors will have recovered approximately 77p in the pound. There has already been a total of £2.56bn paid to investors since the suspension of the Fund from the distribution of proceeds from the sale of investments."

I understand this to mean up to 77p in the pound, including what has already been paid out.

I lost money in this Woodford fund with HL. Link and HL have been more than opaque in what the amounts paid out relate to. Complete gibberish data from HL about what proportion is being returned for calculating CGT losses and they are just as unhelpful with direct questions about what the figures they provide actually mean - seems they don't know, they are just figures spewed out by their algorithm.

Has anyone else had these problems with HL or found answers?

Has anyone joined the class action with RGL or Leigh Day?

Are there any other company's shares that day after day just don't move? Something's not right here. It feels as though the SP is being held/manipulated.

The 🦭 embarrasses itself again with its wilful ignorance.

I disagree. Avacta need to offer Derek a non-executive directorship ASAMP as they are clearly in need of his expertise. If they'd followed his advice Phase 1 would be wrapped up by now, the company sold for £200bn.

Https://jnm.snmjournals.org/search/ava6000

Abstract

https://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/64/7/1001

Anythng else, $15

Do not throw 🐠🐟 to the 🦭

Yeah but they got the name of our drug wrong!

120. McLaughlin, F.; Poplawski, S.; Sanford, D.; Saunders, A.; Lai, J.; Vincent, M.; Bachovchin, W.; Bell, N.

Abstract 1815: AVA6000, a novel Precision medicine, targeted to the tumor microenvironment via Fibroblast Activation Protein (FAP) mediated cleavage.

Cancer Res. 2022, 82, 1815. [https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/82/12_Supplement/1815/700880/Abstract-1815-AVA6000-a-novel-Precision-medicine]

"Cohort V delivered Doxorubicin at x2.2 normal levels. Cohorts VI will commence early July and deliver Doxorubicin at x2.7 normal levels."

This slipped through unchecked the first time. I think "contained" would be a better word than "delivered" as delivered implies that all the linked doxorubicin was cleaved and we don't know that that was the case. It may have been that no AVA6000 was excreted intact but we can't say that for sure.

"Cohort V delivered Doxorubicin at x2.2 normal levels. Cohorts VI will commence early July and deliver Doxorubicin at x2.7 normal levels."

It is actually 2.25x and 2.79x the doxorubicin contained in the 75mg/m² doxorubicin dose.

Interim data may not be published part-way through Phase 1b but if the doxorubicin patients are switched to AVA6000 after, say 4 cycles (12 weeks), for ethical reasons because the improved efficacy, reduced side-effects and lack of cardiotoxicity of AVA6000 is so much better then I guarantee that would be RNSed and everyone can then draw their own conclusions about AVA6000 efficacy.

Anyway, Phase 1a will, pre-data publication and under NDAs for prospective licencees, give some qualitative data on efficacy and side-effects and (statistically) limited quantitative data (from bi-cycle tumour monitoring) on disease progression and any regression. Marry that with AVA3996 preclinical data correlated with AVA6000 preclinical data and compared to AVA6000 clinical data and the pharma companies should be chomping at the bit. Best deal for first mover? Floodgates then open?

Re: https://www.philogen.com/philogen/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20221014_Philogen_OncoFAP_Clinical_PR.pdf

Philochem AG patents for this date from 19 August 2021, so a long way from commercialisation.

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/result.jsf?_vid=P20-LJVD4Z-12901

Tech seems to be a big protein (OncoFAP) linked via the peptide Gly-Pro to a cytotoxic, the favoured one of which is monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE), a dolastatins derived from marine moluscs and not, as far as I can see, authorised for use yet. MMAE is so toxic that drugs in development have to be masked with an antibody and be directed to the site of action.

https://go.drugbank.com/metabolites/DBMET02167

Apologies, I meant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiHYIrrgktc&ab_channel=InvestorMeetCompany slide 17 (@29:07)