Member Info for CTSFO

The piece states “currently using a convertible loan” which I’ve taken to mean a Convertible Loan Note - CLN. These can be a lender of last resort. Avacta is in a table of companies “known or likely to need a cash injection in 2024”. I don’t know what their exact cash position is here and now. Let me check one more thing.

It’s worth signing up to the Hardman & Co site. The HHI report shows Avacta using a CLN, by accounts or estimate having £26,000,000 free cash and an annual burn of £17,000,000 all as of 31st December 2023. The use of the CLN is particularly mentioned, not an imminent need for refinancing to allow the audited accounts to be signed off.

It’s a very good site to sign up to, some research is free, and the Hardman Healthcare Index is worth a read. Interesting seeing how many AIM listed pharmaceutical companies have seen a drop in sp year on year 31st December 2022-2023. Our sp staying flat doesn’t seem quite so bad.

That’s fair. Nature and shareholders abhor a vacuum. But you are 100% right, they are getting on with the job. If they’re doing what they said they would, there’s nothing to RNS. And a ‘nothing new’ RNS will get shredded. They’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t. Right up to the Big One we’re waiting for. We can speculate all we like about the future of the company: TO / JV / licensing deals. We’ll know when we know. In the meantime it’s like Schrödinger’s Cat. Anything is equally possible.

Best of luck.

Ice, there should be a middle ground. Not everyone who posts good news is ramping, not everyone who raises a question is trying to drop the sp for a better entry price. I think Avacta is going to be in the 10% who make it. And make it big, very very big. Both financially and therapeutically. But I accept there are still risks involved. That’s the nature of the pharmaceutical industry. Simply finding examples of straight to market from Phase 1 trials is potentially hugely important for us.

Good luck.

I picked up on BV’s recent relevant post about the misleading comments re FDA approval for the change in dose intervals.

No amendments have been made to the original trial design held in the national registry. Such as the anticipated duration and report time of the 1a trials. Then started looking at 3+3 trial designs. It’s interesting, but the bit that caught my eye was the approval of drugs after phase 1 trials. I know this is blatant wishful thinking, cough ramping cough, but could we be looking at this, or something similar, happening with AVA6000?

https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/EDBK_319783

I’ll copy the source in the next post:

“ Conclusions

Classic 3+3 phase I trial designs have withstood the test of time. They offer rapid, but reasonable, dose escalation, with negligible rates of toxic death. Dose escalation based on toxicities (toxicity-adjusted dose escalation) seen rather than predetermined formulas may prove optimal. The data show that increased (rather than decreased) numbers of patients in phase I allow more precise determination of important side effects.13 Furthermore, expansion of cohorts in a phase I trial can even lead to regulatory approval after phase I in cases in which substantial activity is observed.2,3 Other considerations may include allowing intrapatient dose escalation, measuring concentration of drugs, and adjusting dosing for age, patient comorbidities, and drug levels. Bayesian designs in early phase oncology trials may also expedite knowledge acquisition.53 Trials evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitors also made extensive use of expanded phase I trials, enrolling hundreds of patients into dose-expansion cohorts following dose escalation, hence accelerating drug development.”

Https://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/clinical-trials

BV, afternoon, found this on the SKM site:

“Patients generally do not have to pay extra out-of-pocket costs for treatments studied as part of a trial. Every trial is different, but the clinical trial’s sponsor usually pays for all research-related costs and any special testing.

Typically, the patient or his or her insurance company is asked to pay for any routine tests, treatments, or procedures that would be required as part of standard cancer treatment. Before you join a clinical trial, you will receive an informed consent document that spells out exactly what you’ll have to pay for and what you won’t.

At MSK, we have on-staff financial counselors who can help you manage any insurance and financial questions related to clinical trials.“

An interesting little review on FAP and cancer.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10415543/

More of the same. This isn’t behind a paywall. It’s time to go where biotech is valued?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-19/why-the-london-stock-exchange-lost-two-thirds-of-its-activity

Please excuse me teaching everyone to suck eggs… that 10% is the success rate of a brand new molecule going through every clin trial phase and making it to market. AVA6000 is a very different beast. I’m surprised they didn’t improve the percentage chance of making it to market by allowing for this.

AHS: what do you think the fair value sp should be today?

AimHigherStill: Afternoon, what do you think fair value is at present? What KPIs or equivalent would make the sp rise?

Bella, sorry to hear about your friend, I share your worries. Any established tumour has already managed to evade the immune system. Re targeting and amplifying the immune response does make some sense. But if it goes wrong, it goes spectacularly wrong. The attached is an infamous example of this. I know it’s not a vaccine at play in this disaster, and I’m not an anti-vaxer, but I hope and pray we don’t see this repeated.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8863-catastrophic-immune-response-may-have-caused-drug-trial-horror/

Oops. Didn’t Realise ARCHER wasn’t worth reposting.

“ Avacta — chemotherapy without side effects. There is no chance this company remains independent for long, even if trials remain in early stages, the pre CISION platform alone makes this an inevitable target for big pharma. No idea what price to put on it, but much more than the current market cap. Novartis is next door.”

Https://investingstrategy.co.uk/stock-tips/the-buyout-targets-of-2024/

@JiveTurkey… excellent points. I didn’t think it through like that, more focused on suppression of R&D, couldn’t agree more.

The same can be said for every single drug trial that resulted in a change in clinical practice.

The doxorubicin market is very small compared to other agents. They made it to market without hindrance. Also… way too information is already within the public domain re AVA6000. If the standard doxorubicin producers want to keep their profits… they’ll need to buy in /JV / TO / license.

Non Exec Director Dr D a v I d M. A. H O L B R O OK

GMC 2788351

Makes a thing about being a qualified physician. He’s GMC registered, even if not practicing. It might be worth getting him to take an interest. Eg LinkedIn. Or refer him to the GMC for failing in his duty / bringing the profession into disrepute. They take this type of behaviour very seriously.