Member Info for Fruitsnveg

We do agree Doc.Daneeka. Yes "/or not "was my mistake, meant to take it out before posting.

I was talking about inclusion critera Doc.Daneeka. As in these:
Stage 1
1. Aged =18 years old
2. Has symptoms of an acute respiratory illness (ARI)*
Plus, for Stage 2
3. Has positive test result for respiratory viral infection

the "/or not" my mistake, typo.

100 patients, not 1100...excuse my sloppy typing .

I have to disagree with timescales that some are putting forward. IMO it should not take too long to recruit 1100 patients in each of 10 sites. They just need to be >18 and have a respiratory infection/or not. Easy target group and we know our A&E departments up and down the country will be full in a couple of weeks, as they have been for the past few years when Winter viruses take hold, and that was pre-Covid.
Secondly, Janssen & Synairgen or J/AZ & Synairgen?, will not need to wait a year or 3 for data. I should think they will have access to a growing body of data in the form of a database (per protocol samples will start to be taken within weeks of first patient) and can analyse trends etc sooner than recruitment end date. As Ghia pointed out a few posts back, there are also some exceptionally qualified people in UoS ,including in other spin-out companies such as TopMD, the precision-medicine focussed phenotyping gurus (who, most interestingly, sent a representative to our AGM too...!! ) that could be leveraged in the UNIVERSAL trial? Although the overall UNIVERSAL trial may take 2 or 3 years, the Janssen-funded bit that Synairgen is collaborating on (the observational study) could in effect yield usable data much sooner than that. One of the secondary objectives remember is cost (cost estimate per patient based on Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) coding at baseline/discharge), and that information should be relatively quick to ascertain.
A PT trial does not need to wait for an observational study to finish. It is my hope that we will be one one or PT PT trials alongside this collaboration with BP.
Just my views to throw into the mix.

Aether in the study link it mentions a '1 year period' which I assume is the Janssen/Synairgen bit of the overall longer UNIVERSAL study? Probably best bet would be to ask the company to clarify timings of the study, to get it straight from the horses mouth.

Ninewalls are just a study site, they are not funding it, Janssen is. That's the intriguing thing. AZ have long funded Prof.TW and UoS respiratory-related research, but Janssen have now inserted themselves alongside Synairgen for this Observational study. That's interesting to me.

Contrary to what is stated below, the UoS website does not mention funding by AZ, it mentions only Janssen - see here : https://www.southampton.ac.uk/ctu/trialportfolio/listoftrials/universal.page

Also the RNS does not mention AZ. Nor does the Proactive link I just posted.

Where did the AZ link to funding come from?

No mention though of AZ here, only Janssen:
https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/991735/synairgen-to-play-key-role-in-respiratory-viral-infection-study-991735.html

I hate to 'nitpick' as it upsets TLW, but have you noticed tat the trial documentation was produced in April, June and through Summer 2022? The first patient dosed was 1st September but the study has ben in the making for some months
Still waters run deep, etc.

Migs, you might want to send that memo to the EMA who "stressed that the virus is still circulating and is evolving quickly."
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/2/completely-new-covid-strains-possible-in-winter-eu-drug-agency

Migs V the scientific community/the EMA, part 1.

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/991735/synairgen-to-play-key-role-in-respiratory-viral-infection-study-991735.html

I think so Aether. It sounds like a thought-provoking session to me, placing us at the heart of what RM rightly called "a critical conversation". ["Don’t be resistant to going antiviral: Could a broad-spectrum inhaled antiviral reduce the incidence of secondary bacterial chest infections? "].

Being filtered?

Fair enough TLW.

Describing it as a "pointless debate" because I called your facts into question and you can't back them up is rather unsportsmanlike of you TP. But I am not one to labour a point, so onwards we go....

I wasn't aware that a team had gone, so just asking again, is there a list of those that attended ATS?

I'm not sure I follow TP. Do you mean the list of people involved in Sprinter (footnoted, at the top)? If so, nowhere is is stated that they all attended the ATS? They were all involved in the Sprinter study, but I can't see anything saying they were intending to or did all attend the ATS?

The 'et al' is in reference to the authors, not attendees IMO. 'et al' is commonplace o author lists. Also the ATS was subject to an RNS. Not so with AMR next week. It may well be that more than 1 Snr Executive is attending, with good reason, but at this point I think it is just speculation. Maybe we will get further clarity next week?

"A team of Synairgen execs accompanied PM to the ATS conference". What team was this TP? Is this fact or speculation?

I can't see Senior Executives flying to Washington if they are not presenting themselves, not on the "company coin" especially given the unrelenting focus here on the balance sheet? Deals can now be signed remotely? The days of travelling to make company announcements stopped some years ago?.