Member Info for Doc.Daneeka

Fruits can we afford to run a P3 trial ? NO. Would any pharma engage in a JV to back a P3 trial wthout requiring a large slice of the pie ? NO

gunto - one surprise will be plenty thanks - I'd be interested to know where your certainty of multiple trials comes from though ? Anything that isn't free of course will entail a fundraise or loss of equity.

Wigster - yes the new recruits do tell a different tale, and one that gives us hope that STRIVE might still happen.

I've no idea Aether. The Covid data must be worth something to someone - but the sp doesn't lie and in a few short weeks the whole enterprise will be vulnerable.

I think they've almost accepted that they're once again a Respiratory disease research company. Taking part in panel debates - launching an educational podcast - supporting trials that will benefit the entire medical community rather than their own drug, and providing data from the last 2 and a half years of Covid trialing that supports the general hypothesis surrounding interferon threrapy but has not convinced anyone to take SNG001 further. It's always been a strange mix of top academics and middle ranking businessmen and i fear that Prof SSH and Wilko will retire with reputations intact but with the knowledge that their great contribution to respiratory research will not be in the field of interferons. or at least their part in it being proven will be a footnote rather than principal authors.
There's still a month or so for SRIVE to come to the rescue but if it doesn't the final shot in the SNG story will be that last shot from Raiders of the Lost Arc where a forklift slowly trundles the last pallet of SNG001 vials deep into the vast NIH warehouse.

cobblers

Trinity and Doc83 yes I'm sure you're right - I shoul have distanced myself from that part of his comment, which was unpleasant and unhelpful

Hi Trinityman I added a few comments because i though FtC7's point was well made and the abuse he received was uncalled for. I enumerated the specific areas of concern i had. Each of the 4 points I headed in this way drew attention to paragraphs or sentences that I consider to be factually untrue - I could have added "in my opinion" but they were so far from any rational analysis that i didn't think it necessary.
I wont rehash them here - but my post is still there and you can decide for yourself if you think Brysoa's analysis is an accurate summation of the current landscape and whether Synairgen is at the centre of the current debate.
Brysoa ia very well respectd contributor to this board and I just think he let himself get carried away with this post.

As far as the future is concerned I think that if Synairgen isn't able to achieve something from the 3 years of Covid testing it probably won't achieve anything with the drug when the world returns to normal. Still optimistic for STRIVE - as I've said many times, but bemused that Big Pharma has not been knocking down the door to get hold of SNG001 and get it over the line.

TfC7 may have expressed his opinion rather bluntly, and his disaffection with the company is a matter of record but hardly anything in Brysoa's long treatise is correct.
1. " I am reminded of how different the respiratory viral infection landscape was a mere 36 months ago and how central to the changes Synairgen has been. " The truth is that nothing Synairgen has done in the last 36 months has changed the respiratory viral landscape.
2. "The Covid pandemic has moved Synairgen and its agenda centre stage in a way scarcely imaginable in December 2019 " obviously this is as far from the truth as it's possible to be. SNG held centre stage for a few brief weeks in the summer of 2020 and this appeared to be supported with the Activ 2 inclusion but everything that's happened since has pushed it further and further into the background.
3 "To all appearances their efforts and the results to date of their investigative programme are taken seriously in governmental, regulatory and industry circles. " No evidence of this whatsoever - or support would have been forthcoming.
4. " as public weariness with booster vaccination, fuelled by rational or irrational fears regarding vaccine safety in the long term, becomes ever more pronounced, the environment will continue to morph in favour of the need for host-directed micro-organism agnostic therapeutics " Also no evidence of public weariness of or suspicion of the booster programme. Not here anyway. Most people in the UK were boosted just once and that was over a year ago. Booster rates in the oldest and most at risk populations are in the high 70s and 80s percentile and under 50s have not even been offered boosters since the spring of 22. Clearly the high level of infections in the early days of BA1 - coupled with boosters protected the UK very well (as evidenced by the current Chineses outbreak )

If Sprinter had succeeded the debate would have changed dramatically in the way Brysoa suggests - as it is now NIH and all other investigative bodies are continuing the same regime of testing repurposed drugs and relying on BP to find new solutions. It may seem incredible to us that they are largely ignoring the huge danger of a new and deadly variant or of the new cpompletely new zoonotic pathogen but that's wehere we are.

agree TP - a possible hints that it revs though :)

I'm sure you haven't all missed it but this is an American hire. Probably the first permanent staff position in the US. Working in a team of one - which explains the broad brief and even broader set of skills required.
The bits and bobs added to the Southampton team recently have not signalled as much as this single hire - which points
in only one direction as far as I can see and that is an anagram of rivets.
If we're absolutely certain it's new then it's bthe best bit of news since the deep dive

there are uncomfortable echoes Doc83 but surely there was justification then - when they believed beyond question that Sprinter would be a success. They were acting in good faith and there's nothing to say they're not still doing that.

except for those new hires - as Aj and Td have pointed out. Did the Captain of the Titanic send his waiters and stewards to the boiler room to start shovelling more coal after they hit ? Probably not.

You can't second guess it. All there is is the low howl of the wind and the tumbleweed blowing through this bb. We either have a trial or we don't. 11 months on and it's increasingly likely that we don't. Clearly if we don't, it's curtains. and whether that's in 2 months or 8 is neither here nor there. If we're lucky someone will pick up the company on the cheap sometime after Feb 21st and those who averaged down will get something back.

Aether STRIVE is fully funded. In general it's a more difficult landscape but we haven't heard anything to suggest it's not progressing as originally planned. And we remain one of the few eligible candidates. Protease inhibitors are being trialed on STRIVE and Recovery - Mabs are out - so there's not much else they can try. If we don't get onto it then it means NIH were waiting for the peer review before deciding or that they disagree fundamentally with the Sprinter deep dive.

I'm confused by this Titania. Your first post about steroids being excluded from Strive came with a link to the company's own outpatient trial (11.59am yesterday) Not STRIVE but the Scorpio-HR trial which is for outpatients.
Before this you posted a link at the start of the thread to Shionogi's P2/3 Asian trial. Also an outpatient trial Clearly in outpatients steroids are never used and are not SOC.
S-217622 clearly has as many contraindications as Paxlovid but I can't see anything about steroids in the STRIVE protocol.
So the question is - does this quote come from the STRIVE protocol (which would make some sense ) or from the company's trial you linked to - and why would they bother to excluide steroids when they are never used in outpatient setting anyway ?
"Note: Current use of some corticosteroids is exclusionary, due to concern for possible drug-drug interaction (DDI) with S-217622."

I don't think it matters too much in any case. This is a single agent protocol made just for S-217622. The next drug admitted to STRIVE will have its own unique protocol - unlike the Activ program where all trialists worked to a single master protocol

the only thing I'd say about this is that those who see signs in these things already celebrated it when the job was advertised - and then probably when it was filled So the "positivity" is already factored in without a third announcement that she's actually started work.

there was a young lass called Danielle Stappleton
Left Seagan to start at Synairgen
Got her test tubes in a line again
Poor old MrC again - MC again

for old times sake....

Hi titania "I note that steroids not recommended for mild cases in Japan. " Dexamethasone is not recommended for mild cases anywhere. It is EUAd for oxygen and intubated patients - although in late 2020 and 2021 drs in the States and India in particular were doling it out on arrival.
The point about Shionogi is that it's a protease inhibitor and just as Recovery is now trialing Paxlovid in hospitalised patients - both are being looked at on admission because they stop viral replication. Paxlovd of course comprises Nirmatrelvir (the inhibitor) and Ritonavir, which stops the body flushing Nirm too soon, but has a long list of contraindications and the STRIVE protocol for S-217622 in describing the drug says " S-217622 is an oral anti-SARS-CoV2 PI that does not require ritonavir co-administration " which is odd to mention something that is not approved in hospitals anyway - but you can see what they're driving at and that if they can avoid using Ritonavir they'd prefer it.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/jpm23-day-1-chiesi-ipsen-ink-ma-deals-bluebird-touts-gene-therapy-launch-progress