Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the video here.
Rory, please take this as discussion not argument. I read what you posted about early stage Pharma and their valuations. Difficult to read, but it made sense. Yet at the same time there are Broker’s Notes suggesting the sp should be higher than the £1.20 it was at, for example.
The ‘science’ shows great promise. We need a businessman / woman to take this forward. Businesspeople employ scientists, it shouldn’t be the other way around.
“ I still think (more than ever with hindsight), that the "unexpected surprise" of more dosing after Cohort 4 scuppered the cash runway. Why it was a surprise I don't know. Was it the results? I guess it has to be, what else could it be?”
We can safely say Big Al likes a bit of hype… yet still manages to get caught out when the drug performs exactly as it’s meant to. Why TF were they surprised? That’s the bit I don’t get. It does what they wanted it to. Why wasn’t the chance of them getting it right factored in?
If Avacta get to give a proper presentation to the main audience, we’re looking good. If all the data out of P1aA1 Q3W - all 7 cohorts - is only worth a little poster, then WTF have they been hiding from us? I know it’s a safety trial, but these really big doses should have biopsy data that confirms significant uptake into the TME / cancer cells.
They aren’t reinstating 1b. It’s not in the RNS or the Turner Pope note.
“ The Company would, dependent on the data obtained during the Phase 1a and Phase 2 trials, anticipate commencing a potential Phase 3 trial in Q1 2026 for AVA6000 (also subject to funding and regulatory approval).”
We’ll have to see if this P3 is for indications other than or including STS.
Good afternoon everyone.
Re trials stopped early. Not teaching people to suck eggs:
Having a trial stopped early because of proven efficacy is every Pharma’s dream. Stopped early because of harm or no benefit is their nightmare.
Every participant within a trial will be under higher level surveillance and investigation. ADR - Adverse Drug Reactions are constantly being actively looked for. Likewise evidence of efficacy will also be looked for. Unfortunately it’s more common for a trial to be stopped for ADRs. Avacta has a dedicated ADR option if you ring the company switchboard.
But we’re on a winner here. So much is already known about plain doxorubicin, and liposomal doxorubicin, the trial(s) have a huge established dataset to compare against.
GLA
It is stupid to sell at a loss, I accept that. And yes, a bit of a knee jerk. I’ve lost trust. I pathologically hate criminals and people who lie. This goes beyond sentiment, AS has deliberately deceived people. Or he’s simply incompetent. The science is sound, the platform works. Al isn’t and doesn’t. I know the company isn’t going bust, so the shares should recover. I just want everything to settle. I want to see what happens with REX.
I know the SP can change here very quickly, I might well regret my actions. But likewise, a less than spectacular AACR and larger share drop to Heights might push the SP down even further.
I’m going to stick to the science if I post here. Still invested, just not as much.
Above all else I wish everyone a good weekend and better luck going forward.
I was 50% down and have sold the majority at this loss. Worse in the ISA. Not going to be a bitter troll here. I just want a little stability. I know the SP might rocket up, but likewise a drop might occur.
Difficult to trust anything coming from the company at present. I hope and pray the AACR results are good. We’ll get some direction once we know if it’s a poster or proper presentation. Second time I’ve been badly burnt by believing the hype from a CEO. The BGC needs to go.
Something ‘interesting’ is / has happened. Orphan Drugs have their own legislation and trial procedures to satisfy the FDA. They don’t typically need the formal / standard P1,2,3 trial sequence. I thought Avacta were planning to take advantage of this by having AVA6000 granted ODS for STS.
I’m interested as to why P1,2,3 are now being required? Or have I read it wrong, will there be P1, 2&3 hybrid trial for STS, and formal P1,2,3 trials for other cancers?
This is worth a read:
https://academicentrepreneurship.pubpub.org/pub/einr3b30
If you look at the slide decks from Avacta, they show mild, repeat mild, side effects. This is very reassuring. Certainly no cardiotoxic events so far. We need this shown in all the cohorts - which I think they will - and in Q2W. The low free doxorubicin in the blood is what is to be expected. The trials need to show no breakdown in the bone marrow or other sites of more rapid cell division.
Please don’t take this as FUD, deramping, insulting anything like that.
They’ve proven the safety of the drug, we’ve all seen that, but there have been mild side effects. So it’s not purely drug delivery into the tumour and nothing else. The more recent cohorts will give information on this.
What we really must see is enhanced cytotoxicity, and a change in the rate of development of multi drug resistance. If this is being suggested, then it’s excellent news. Just equalling plain doxorubicin won’t be enough.
The ongoing trials may, repeat may, not be a trial against plain doxorubicin, but against things like liposomal doxorubicin or other delivery systems.
BUT… and this is important… this is as much about the delivery platform as it is about doxorubicin. If they get it right with a better warhead, we’ll quickly forget we ever did anything with doxorubicin.
Touk, I agree. For all our sakes I hope they’ve got something very special to present at AACR. The change in tone / enthusiasm / excitement about the drug is being picked up by everyone. The company needs to sort itself out, pronto.
Ice, sorry to say this, the P1a data simply isn’t enough. It’s encouraging, it suggests it works, but the numbers here are tiny compared to what is needed for a PL from the FDA, MHRA, or EMA. All Pharma regulators have really tightened scrutiny.
Still think ODD for STS is the best route to market. From a patient perspective, I hope they JV this.
ATBD, fair comment. I’ve read and reread that RNS. My take was the “subject to funding” comment meant ‘subject to this funding taking place now’ for work up till the end of 2025. They said this money would give a 2 year runway. 2026 and P3 is anyone’s guess.
Agree the FDA comments are very vague. They imply an update from Q2W and Q3W will take place towards the end of 1H24 I think? Might have said early 2H24.