We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Morning SOG - whilst Sierra might appear to be a good candidate there must be lots of other private companies, each protected from public view by the pharma's that own them. If any trial under control of the subsidiary fails then it's at arm's length of the parent company and won't create such large headlines.
It does make you wonder who was in the orderly queue - only small biotechs or did one or two of the majors also take an interest?
Someone attending the next meeting should pump the BoD for off-the-record info to be shared freely here!
Hi LJ - no idea how much water the lawsuit holds. As someone here pointed out at the time, every merger/takeover in the US will probably see some activist shareholder(s) shouting foul and calling for legal action.
https://lawstreetmedia.com/news/health/shareholder-sues-oncology-company-over-securities-violations/
I was only thinking 737 was maybe back with Sierra as they obviously have prior knowledge/trials and patent applications not to mention now being 'private' but that probably means nothing in the world of big pharma. SOG put forward perfectly reasonable thoughts as to why development stalled so we're currently in the dark, not knowing in which direction to stab.
On the bright side, I think the 1801 MAD study should be completed this week or next so news must be just around the corner.
Regards.
Evening Leggster - yeah, as far as I can see the earliest milestone is simply dependent on accessing funding or even sub-licencing as the RNS refers to commercial objectives.
Thereafter the RNS stated, "Additional payments to the aggregate amount of up to US$289 million may become payable to CPF under the Licensing Agreement, subject to achievement of certain development, regulatory and commercial milestones." So this would probably include the payment clauses relating to getting 737 into patients that BenH alluded to.
Although I've previously suggested 737 might be back in the hands of Sierra, as they are now a GSK company I can't see how funding would be any sort of issue. I expect I'll continue to overthink things until the truth comes out.
Hi Ben - from the Jan 2nd RNS, "An additional fee made up of up to US$1.0 million cash and 500,000 shares in the Licensee Company (the "Consideration Shares") may be payable upon the sooner of 12 months following the signing of the Licensing Agreement, or the event of the Licensee Company achieving certain commercial and material financing objectives."
The above only talks about commercial & funding objectives rather than clinical progress which suggests the milestones may appear sooner rather than later since (I'd assume) funding needs to come before clinical trials start.
If I've interpreted this correctly, it might seem a bit odd as you'd expect a biotech company to be looking at clinical trials to indicate progress/success whereas the above maybe suggests that they have a different business model in mind, or CPF have recognised this approach could actually be better in the short term for CPF/SAR as the milestones will be based on funding rather than trial outcomes i.e. any trial would probably take longer to design/begin compared to arranging funding.
All just guesswork for now.
Morning SOG - since we're only financial beneficiaries of the on-licence deal, there could be a totally watertight NDA that prevents CPF telling us who now has 737. Even if the BoD know who it is, they maybe aren't able to say anything until the licence holder makes an announcement.
Bleedin' frustrating, if you ask me.
Just found this new combo research - https://nwm.covr.be/cmPortal/searchable/eai24/config/normal#!abstractdetails/0000998790
Introduction
Replication stress is a common feature of solid cancers, and drugs targeting replication stress such as Checkpoint kinase 1 inhibitors (CHK1i) have demonstrated significant preclinical activity although this has not translated into an effective clinical treatment, primarily due to high normal tissue toxicity. We have demonstrated that a combination of CHK1i with a subclinical dose of hydroxyurea selectively targets a range of tumour types, importantly with little normal tissue toxicity. The CHK1i combination also promotes a pro-inflammatory response and immunogenic cell death. In vivo, this drug combination induces tumour regression which is dependent on an adaptive immune response. Here we report the immune responses triggered by this combination in mouse models and demonstrate that this response is suppressed by tumour-associated myeloid cells.
Material and Methods
Syngeneic mouse melanoma and ovarian cancer models were treated in vivo with the combination of CHK1i SRA737 and low dose hydroxyurea. The tumour immune microenvironment and peripheral immune cell responses were assessed by expression analysis and immune cell marker multiparameter flow cytometry.
Results and Discussions
In the panel of cancer models tested in syngeneic mice, the CHK1i combination controlled tumour growth. Immune responses were elicited by the CHK1i combination in all tumours but found different types of immune cell responses in the different models and cancers investigated. The combination enhanced immune responses independent of the initial tumour immune microenvironment, including in tumours that were immunologically "cold". The common features of the immune responses in all the models are increased cytolytic activity and reduced immune suppression in the tumour microenvironment. The responses were dependent on CD8+ T cells with a contribution from NK cells. Myeloid cells in the tumour microenvironment were immunosuppressive and this could be reversed by depletion with CSF-1R antibody or reducing tumour CSF-1 expression.
Conclusion
This demonstrates the CHK1i combination is highly selective with minimal normal tissue toxicity, does not adversely affect immune responses, and can trigger an effective anti-tumour immune response in range of tumour settings. Reducing tumour associated myeloid number or activity was associated with enhanced anti-tumour immune responses. This work suggests that the myeloid component of tumours may significantly alter treatment responses by suppressing anti-tumour immune activity.
There's an interesting article in the latest New Scientist magazine looking at how skin health impacts our bodies. It notes links between psoriasis and increased risk of bone loss, heart attack and dementia. If 1801 proves to be effective then it'll have an impact far beyond just treating psoriasis.
The NS article is behind a paywall here but you could always take a sneek peek at your local newsagent.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26134802-900-the-unexpected-ways-your-skin-impacts-your-health-and-longevity/
The link below is also worth a look if you can't access the NS article.
https://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/psoriasis/ss/slideshow-psoriasis-related-conditions-risk
Evening MathsProf - thanks for the reply. We all have our own strategies so if RF feel they can make theirs work then who am I to judge? I just wonder how the landscape will look in a couple of months as we should be recruiting for P1b by then. Maybe even have the makings of an on-license.
Hi PCS - Yes, I agree that the way the RF deal was done allows for us to pay it off and cancel oustanding shares if other funds become available however I find it odd that some here expect RF to dump shares at any price simply to recoup their initial outlay. RF must surely intend turning a profit rather than simply breaking even so why not sit things out until (hopefully) good 1801 results lead to big wins (unless of course they are very close to going out of business and need every penny they can scrape together)? As previously reported, RF's own situation appears dire so it's anyone's guess how long they can last based on their income from current clients/victims.
Anyway, hope all is well at your end.
Regards.
I've mentioned previously that I won't have any funds to add here until May so I fully expect the sp to rise prior to that!
For those thinking we'll never reach £3+ again, just remember that once upon a time (pre consolidation) the sp was sub-1p but we managed to reach 9p (obviously aided by covid-mania and HNWs). If we get further news on 737 and positive results on 1801 then things should improve despite RF's machinations. Yes, funding will always be an issue until 'big' news hits but even the most ardent doomster knows the pharma world can turn on a sixpence if a fat deal comes along.
As others commented at the time, I wonder if the RF deal has a clause where if they sell out at a certain percentage way below their buy-in price then that loss is on them rather than us dishing out replacement shares to prop them back up.
Hi Aber - I suppose the litmus test would be if any of the HNW investors feel the same. I imagine with their clout they could push for SP to be replaced if they felt the need.
You've got to concede that from our vantage point any view of the BoD is going to be fairly one-dimensional. It's easy, perhaps even lazy, to criticise our current position based on a few metrics such as measuring salaries against current sp. For all we know Tim wanted to raise funds via 'X' but Parker had to rein him in; we just don't know what gets discussed so unless the BoD are dumping their own shares like there's no tomorrow and 1801 is dead in the water, we have two options - carry on with gritted teeth or take a loss and move on.
I'm sure there are things Parker could do better (or worse, for that matter) but I have no idea what those things might be. So unless you have complete insider knowledge, be careful what you wish for.
Mysteries of the bleedin' universe, Potnak. I guess there are always competitors looking over your shoulder trying to get an advantage so with so much money potentially at stake, pharmas often keep quiet and only shout about successes.
At least we can console ourselves with the fact the internet cannot keep a secret - the truth will out!
Afternoon SOG - I think you're incorrect to suggest, "Licence not yet agreed as l would deem raising of finances a prior requisite" as that would seem to go against SAR's own website which notes, "...is now licensed to a private US-based bioharma company" and also the business weekly article that states, "...has signed a licence agreement for SRA737" so it would appear to be a done deal rather than still hanging in the balance.
https://sareum.com/research-development/#our-overview
https://www.businessweekly.co.uk/posts/sareum-shares-soar-as-it-starts-to-cash-in-on-cancer-programme
Sorry, Potnak, more detail here https://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/link-china-pharma-solutions-brokers-sareum-co-development-agreement-china-auroraflt3
Hi Potnak - it was Hebei Medical University Biomedical Engineering Center - http://www.chinabiotoday.com/articles/20131203_1
Hi SOG - the question is, if 737 is now with MEI, why the radio silence on it? What do they stand to gain in keeping it under wraps?
If Mei had licensed 737 they'd have had to announce it here within a day of signing the agreement - https://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/#/dateRange=1y&ciks=0001262104&entityName=MEI%2520Pharma%252C%2520Inc.%2520(MEIP)%2520(CIK%25200001262104)
Sorry, forgot to include this - https://otp.tools.investis.com/clients/uk/sareum_holdings_plc/rns/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=2841&newsid=1732138