Member Info for hold4results

Kudos, Polar Capital. Nice to see some serious backing/confidence.

Intervir AirGain Plus

I think they'd probably handle it the way they handle all other prescription drugs, the vast majority of which are self-administered. Tell the patient the dose, check they understand it, give them a leaflet that explains overdosing is bad.
That's about it.

Happy birthday. Now don't go over exciting yourself with the traffic lights, you're not as young as you were.

Pure speculation, but the larger dose could produce a bigger effect than P2.
The placebo/standard of care group ought to do better overall than in P2 due to dexamethasone etc - but that's after progression to severe disease. We could still see a better result in preventing that.

They have not sold it well but the one dose strategy will probably save thousands of lives in the next few weeks.
It allows them to get double the coverage now for a trade off of less efficacy over a shorter period.
It also adds risk but there isn't really a good option here so at least I can understand the reasoning.
I don't understand mix and match as an untested emergency measure. Where is the payoff for the added risk?

I am starting to think that operating on the Julian calendar has turned out to be a strategic error.

The job ads are for permanent staff on payroll to replace contractors and consultants currently doing the work.
'Middle of the year' is very vague and probably has to be so, but I'd say that range goes from the start of Q2 to end of Q3.
I don't think anyone has been able to give a clear timeline on manufacturing and obviously if the vaccine suppliers are facing delays then it can happen to us - we're not in control of what our partners can produce - but in theory we booked our place in the queue for all this well in advance. To some degree we have to trust that Akron and Catalent will deliver, just as we have to trust Parexel to run the trial. They are all world-class companies doing what they know best, so we can't really ask for better from Synairgen. Some government support would be nice, shame it's more likely to come from the US gov than our own.

£14M was the original placing in March to fund P2 and long lead-time work on manufacturing.

The 60 day and 90 day data are for long covid, they won't be waiting around to analyse that data, I think it's more of an extra.

I believe the cat predicted £6.99 by Christmas and we got £1.45, so if we logically infer that the cat's bull target is around 5x base case, from £42 we get a fairly conservative base case of £8.40 by September - not far out of line with Numis.
Is the cat accepting new clients?

It's inevitable people who have been vaccinated will get the virus - even at 90% efficacy, 10% can still get ill with it and more are likely to be asymptomatic and spreading it.
With the move to single dose, the expectation is 70% for now at best. In the short term, there isn't enough vaccine supply. The idea of getting 70% efficacy but in double the population makes sense in terms of cold hard numbers - it will protect more lives ASAP, which has to be the priority for the next few months.
However, lots of people who get the vaccine will still get ill now, and that may damage perception of the vaccine longer term.

In case it's not clear - Darlaluse is a liar/troll, not a virologist with expertise in interferons or any of the other *******s 'she' has spouted.

Ghia, that seems a very reasonable view. I think most people have adjusted expectations towards Q2 for transformational news. I'm still quite optimistic about the near term and expect to see some steps up.

15 years of proprietary research, the product of several lifetimes of work against all the odds and they say 'lazy IP trolls'.
You can see why so few people bother.

Best wishes Amers, didn't mean to sound dismissive. I would be asking for it too and I wish it was available, it's just not the GP's fault it's not.

It's frustrating but unfortunately we can't expect GPs to prescribe an unlicenced drug they've probably never heard of, for a patient who will almost certainly be fine in a week. They have a hard enough time keeping up with everything that's officially sanctioned, there's just no way they could hope to understand every drug in trials at the level where they could be confident prescribing it.

My understanding is that RM has acknowledged the variability and pointed to the fact that the baseline time to discharge in covid patients is fairly high, which in theory makes it a bit easier to demonstrate an effect. A large effect would be brilliant but even a small effect would be extremely valuable since the cost of keeping patients in hospital is enormous.

Part of the rationale for running P3 in up to 20 countries is to test the drug with different standards of care, so I see it as more of a feature than a bug. It's also one of two primary endpoints - both would be brilliant but either gets us over the line.

The other reasons given were ensuring ethnic diversity in the data and 'chasing the virus' wherever it was prevalent at the time - but as things have turned out there isn't much need to chase it, sadly. My guess is that a large majority of patients for P3 will be recruited in the UK and USA.

I think the higher dose does technically add some risk if we're looking to reproduce P2 results. However, I doubt the FDA would approve that change in protocol without being very comfortable with the safety profile. It's also very possible that delivering 20-30% more drug will produce a bigger effect.

Next year will be better.
Best wishes to all.