Member Info for BuenaVista

Pharma companies around the world will have been rummaging through their research compound records looking for super-toxic oncology candidates with a spare NH2 group that could be attached to Avacta's linker. I said that a long time ago (MrA) when the first Phase 1a DEs confirmed the safety and tolerability of the animal models and again, but not in so many words, a few days ago. There are advantages to such companies in this route because toxicity (now a good thing) will have been characterised and the mechanism of action may even be novel.

I'm working on the basis of Phase 1a completion by year end and clear efficacy data trend for Phase 1b by end of H1/24, so 12 months from now.

Brian thinks Avacta is a covid stock.

I think it will depend on what dosing intervals are chosen for AVA6000. Personally, I'd like to see weekly, 2-weekly and 3-weekly to see what the recovery is like between cycles. However they'll probably have a good idea already whether weekly would be achievable or whether 2-weekly would be better.

As they will monitor disease progression, I'd like to think that if AVA6000 is clearly providing much more benefit than doxorubicin that the doxorubicin arm would be halted when they have the systemic and tumour biopsy, etc data they require and the patients switched to AVA6000. Yes, I think the trial may go on for a long time but there will hopefully be a lot of serious interest from pharma companies and the first licence deals when the data shows clear efficacy and reduced side-effects and that would support the SP and obviate the need for a fundraise.

I thought AS said serious interest would be when efficacy was shown in Phase 1b, not when Phase 1a is completed?

Great report. Thanks 54RS. Is the funding through to mid 2024 based on cash currently held or does it include projected profits from Launch and Coris, do you know?

The reduction in side effects has really thrown the question of dosing interval into a tizzy!

Thanks JT. Much appreciated.

Something I found very interesting but which I haven't seen mentioned here so far was when AS was talking about the way the stroma surrounds and protects the tumour* and how this forms a barrier for anticancer drugs but AVA6000 attacks stromal and tumour cells because they, the stromal cells, express FAP. So there is clear opportunity here for use of AVA6000 in combination with other anticancers, whether doxorubicin is currently used or not - AVA6000 can open up the stroma and expose the tumour to the other drug as well as AVA6000 working on the tumour itself.

* Tumour stroma is composed of extracellular matrix and specialized connective tissue cells, including fibroblasts and mesenchymal stromal cells. All tumours have stroma and require stroma for nutritional support and the removal of waste products.

LDA, there's £27m in the bank. A fundraise won't be needed for a while and a lot can happen in the meantime. Also, the reality of needing to fund further trials was, is and will continue to be a reality. The problem of the low SP is mainly down to everyone knowing that Heights will be selling their shares allocation every quarter.

So what if the SP drops on truth being spoken? It is what it is. It's going to take time for Avacta (and us) to realise the financial benefit of their fabulous technologies and in the meantime the shares are the plaything of traders and shorters and tough titties to the weak hands who sell because they're not going to get a 200% return by the end of the year. Low Avacta SPs are just buying opportunities for those that can afford to buy and wait.

That's as may be but was anyone seriously thinking that Avacta would be a $multibillion company at peak sales of AVA6000 and AVA3996 by the end of the year? It is what it is. There is a process. It takes time and costs $$$ to get drugs on the market. What the SP drop post-AGM is is a fantastic buying opportunity for those with available cash.

I'm worried that RAH is a mythical figure, Myles is a unicorn and Terry's a chocolate orange.

They have 'genuine' posters who'll always feed them.

They currently have authorisation from MHRA to go to C7 and 400mg/m².

At the moment, in C6, they are on 310mg/m². That is actually 2.79 times the standard 75mg/m² doxorubicin dose and not 2.7 times - do the maths: (310x54)/(80*75).

Should they go to C7, 400mg/m² would be 3.6 times standard doxorubicin but if they stick to another 60mg/m² increase to 370mg/m² that woulld be 3.33 times. As AS said, they'll know when they start to see blood problems appearing and growing worse that they're approaching MTD and I got the impression that he doesn't envision going beyond C7.

Goodbye (again) then. Maybe see you back here when the SP has doubled?

Alan has started talking and the SP hasn't dropped. It's a first!

Neither have we been informed of the number of attendees. Nor the number of biscuits, their types and whether there are alternatives for biscuit-averse attendees. I think we should be told. The uncertainty is very disconcerting. I suspect Alan has secreted away all the Nice biscuits from circulation and not told Fiona.

"This is the first study to show that a treatment has been able to improve survival in patients with mesothelioma that’s come back after chemotherapy."

So there was no SoC option for them. The trial was basically to find out whether nivolumab was better than taking no medication. (It was.) There was no placebo effect because the trial was quadruple-blind, meaning none of participant, care provider, investigator or outcomes assessor knew which of nivolumab or placebo each patient was getting.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03063450?term=CONFIRM%20nivolumab%20&cond=mesothelioma%20&rank=1

Anyway, nice try but the long and the short of it is that if there is any sort of SoC remaining it would be unethical to use a placebo as comparator. If there are no SoC options left -that's to say there is nothing else that could treat the cancer and the patient is terminally ill, then the patient has nothing to lose by being randomised in a trial of a drug against a placebo ( experimental treatment vs no treatment).

Ignore the troll