Member Info for ddubya

Thanks EP. I agree Ezutromid value will be linked to the strength of 48 week data and confidence in it. However, I consider we are effectively in a joint venture with Sarepta now, whereby 45% of R&D and milestone payments are made in return for rights to a non US licence. I imagine this arrangement also entitles Sarepta to certain data that would otherwise be deemed market sensitive? My take is that Sarepta is likely to be well positioned to make a judgement on efficacy ahead of 48 week results. If they intend to dominate the DMD space and had confidence in Ezutromid, it would seem logical to tempt the competition with an offer?

Interesting coverage from Motley Fool below. Sarepta sales for Exondys 51 are $228 million pa based upon the previous 5 quarters data. That is amazing income for what some describe as a super placebo, which targets only 13% of the DMD market. I have not seen talk of the potential risk to Sarepta income, if either Exondys 51 does not satisfy the FDA tests, or if Ezutromid proved to be a more effective treatment. Interestingly, improvement in the walk test were not reported with E51 until after a year of treatment. Should 48 week results for Ezutromid identify a similar improvement in this respect, it could be devastating for both E51 and Sarepta income? If you also hold the view that Sarepta used SUMM as a cheap hedge, then you might also consider another move by Sarepta is likely sooner rather than later? However, SUMM is now in a far better bargaining position. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/why-summit-therapeutics-shares-climbed-129-today-cm911311

Thanks for the GE quote AppleMacMan, which I missed that first time round. Drug development has its own pace as we know, so I probably am well ahead of myself. However, Ezutromid is looking much more likely to deliver and if/when it does I suspect Becker would follow.

This is probably a question for the medical scientists on the board but given that 24 week results for ezutromid indicate a significant reduction in muscle damage and increased production of utrophin in muscle fibers, is there sufficient cause to believe that ezutromid may have wider application than DMD, for example, in other forms of MD, including Becker (which has been suggested) and for disabilities, which result from other forms of muscle damage/wastage. Obviously, the wider the potential market the better.

Sorry to hear you are leaving us for now at least BT7. We all follow our instinct and you may well prove to be correct. Mine tells me we may be higher by June as more analysis of 24 week data drips out, or perhaps even on a cheeky bid for the DMD side of the business. I note your plan was to sell out before Q1 results so the early 24 week announcement and tick up was probably a bonus? Good luck whatever happens.

Did I say 2014? FDA granted approval for Eteplirsen in 2016

Most of us know that in 2014, the FDA granted approval of Sarepta�s Eteplirsen under circumstances that were controversial to say the least and having overruled its own advisory committee (see recent commentary in the first link below!). The second article below reminds us the FDA�s approval was conditional upon meeting its efficacy standards following completion of a two year study (now completed). I understand the advisory panel was due to meet Sarepta on 22 January so, although it could be a drawn out process, we should keep an eye on this space. I also note that in its Investor presentation of November 2017, Sarepta includes as a risk that �� we may not be able to comply with all FDA post‐approval commitments/requirements with respect to EXONDYS 51 in a timely manner or at all�� From the perspective of shareholders, the outcome of the efficacy standards test holds enormous significance for Sarepta and Eteplirsen approval but also for SUMM. Sarepta may be at commercial stage in the US and have cash in the bank but in my view the downside risk attaching to Eteplirsen, which in any event is suitable only for 13% of sufferers, seems significant. Were we to have positive results for Ezutromid at 48 weeks (ideally with improved walk test results) would it be unreasonable to request the FDA fastrack Ezutromid to commercialisation with the minimum of obstacles? If so, success and relief for sufferers could be closer than many expect. Fingers crossed both for DMD boys and shareholders. https://www.ptcommunity.com/news/20180125/why-did-fda-approve-controversial-muscular-dystrophy-drug-exondys-51 https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/pg5enk/the-fda-might-pull-the-only-drug-for-a-rare-form-of-muscular-dystrophy

Yes - we had an excellent RNS, which provide great promise for 48 week results. Putting my investor hat to one side, DMD sufferers and their families now have hope that science has at last have developed a formulae to alleviate some of their suffering. Well done Dame Kay Davies and whole the SUMM team you can be rightly proud of your work. However, after a day’s trading the 12.86% uplift on NASDAQ is as underwhelming and lacklustre as the RNS is significant. I shall not be averaging up as I already have more than is prudent for a single share. Otherwise, I would have been a buyer in the next AIM session, which Looks like it will open well down on the previous AIM close? I fully expect to realise a handsome profit here at some point but meantime I have placed a limit order to sell at a very much higher value and shall sit tight for as long as required. Had we not been diversifying into anti-biotics discovery and secured funding sufficient to last at least to the 48 week results, I suspect we may have sold out already for poor value. So far, Mr Market continues to question SUMM value whilst elevating that of Sarepta, presumably on the relative strength of its balance sheet. We are not out of the woods yet, so fingers crossed for continued success in 48 week data.

Oops - silly me. Should have read. Interestingly, F3 may be just as effective as F6?

EP- thanks for your summary. I have finished listening to the presentation but could have got by on your summary alone. Focus will understandably be on the 48 week data, but today�s announcement was very much better than I and perhaps most expected, and it was announced weeks early too. F3 may be just as effective as F3 - that was completely unexpected and positive. GE suggested that until the next data set is published, SUMM will drip feed any good indicators it derives from ongoing analysis, so there is potential for more good news. I was also impressed that so many questions were fielded from analysts and they offered what appeared to be genuine congratulations on the data. For scientists understandably bound by caution, they were very upbeat indeed.

Interesting discussion chaps. Concern that 24 week data may not be quite as convincing or conclusive as we would hope has to be valid. However, if positive, then expectation for Q3 should be heightened considerably. Richard Pye did say they were really looking forward to sharing results when he spoke at the Biotech Showcase presentation. Perhaps he would say so regardless of outcome but my hope is for something just a little more positive than a marginal improvement. I also wonder whether Discuva would have had access/insight during DD given that it holds relevance to the value of the share component in their deal? We shall have a better indication on progress in just over 8 weeks but as SUMM is reasonably well funded for now it is under no pressure to �do a deal� unless of course it were on Juno or Sarepta valuations. If strategy is to sell DMD, then repatriation of funds to the US following tax amendment might just provide SUMM with a once off market it needs to derive the very best value.

From what I understand, Roche had already developed whatever it wanted from the Discuva relationship (could be a blockbuster drug itself?) and funding reduced to far less attractive milestone and royalties basis. Having had the best, the Discuva outlook was probably one of cash burn in discovery phase for a few years, when a common view expressed is that anti-biotics does not offer good returns. In this scenario, half the return from the Roche arrangement work plus shares in SUMM (I imagine they may have confidence in DMD) might look very attractive. SUMM has acquired the Discuva platform to develop antibiotics at discovery stage and increases economies of scale but discovery and development will not be cheap. Therefore, my view is that in event of positive 24 week DMD data, it will be sold before publication of 48 week data but after data is shared with the buyer during due diligence. SUMM can then focuses on leading anti-biotic development, where I believe it sees an emerging opportunity. Then again I might just be dreaming.

The audio only presentation of the Biotech Showcase presentation is available (thanks EP). Richard Pye indicated the meeting was well attended, although in terms of content it largely restates/reinforces what we know already, including funding, P2 for Ridinilazole and the recent Discuva deal, including prospect of new antibiotics at discovery phase. The most interesting factor for me is that at two separate parts of the presentation, RP states that SUMM is really looking forward to sharing both the 24 week results in Q1 2018 and the 48 week results later this year. For me, the choice of words and tone used infers confidence, otherwise we might expect results to be downplayed and the focus to be more on other developments such as antibiotics?

That seems like a pretty concise summary FM. Not enough to move the share price upwards but positive long term and with the possibility of some income from the Roche/Discuva arrangements. The only thing I would add is that the first DMD results are confirmed as on track for Q1 2018. As an aside GE did say they were happy with their progress in creating value and also that DMD could be absolutely huge by the end of 2018. I would like to hope so but the latter comment at least should be taken with a pinch of salt until data is in. However, I would have thought it a most unwise statement to make in the absence of confidence in trials progress?

Without inside knowledge we clearly cannot know how much value Discuva will add to the SUMM journey. However, in addition to the cash and shares paid there is also half of the sales and commercialisation payments, which I imagine conveys confidence in realisation of future value for Discuva directors? We have been diluted a couple of times recently but GE seems to have been pretty astute and kept it to a minimum, whilst adding to potential value. I have confidence the SUMM team is a good one but for me so much rests on DMD data now. If positive we should be rewarded for our patience as early as Q1 and or 3 2018. Otherwise, our hopes will be on Ridinilazole and other antibiotics coming good in a few years time. Success in both areas would be nice.

Free-Money, I also recollect the suggestion SUMM would consider becoming a Pharma co (at least 2 years back). I had not considered it a serious proposition then but it does seem more likely now for antibiotics, potentially funded by a DMD sale? Ridinilazole might be moving to P3 soon but given the lead time and development costs of bringing new drugs to market, I really hope any divestment of DMD is preceded by release of strong clinical trial data and an uplift in share value. Whatever the strategy, fingers crossed for good data.

Whist this exercise is a legitimate one, the effect is for PGY to pocket all consolidated shareholdings of less than 500 for a cost close to zero. And any PI wanting to buy in again is subject to a 25% spread. I realise that consolidations are necessary but why are they so often accompanied by an exclusion of the smallest (and most vulnerable) shareholders? I think we all know why and it does not feel like ethical practice. The indifference of the regulator to such practice is one reason I have not purchased pure AIM stocks (the worst offenders) for some years. It is very disappointing, but was perhaps predictable from such a perennial underperformer. We can only hope the Directors and their Advisers reap what they sow somewhere down the line.