Member Info for HotblackDesiato

Not sure about that link, Woodlands, try this - https://sareum.com/chairmans-corner/march-2026-2/

Thanks PCS (and Laz) - I stopped posting/reading the forum because I was just fed up with the mix of bickering, drivel and doomsters. Last week was the first time since about the end of October that I even looked at the sp - we all know what happens to the share price when there's no news so I saved myself some angst!

My short term hope is that if a 737 deal emerges, it's with a global or at least a national pharma rather than another opaque A N Other. That should get the sp back above 50p if a respected pharma gets involved, especially if they announced the deal with a bit of a fanfare/excitement.

I've also been looking at the BoDs' share options and would like to think we get to see what the performance-related targets are.

Regards.

Hi PCS - written answers to IM questions always take 3wks to appear from the date of the event.

A 737 deal sounds not too far away - SP alluded during the event that they are in talks with potential partners and the BoD are confident of some sort of positive outcome. Not sure if they'd RNS anything to say negotiations are underway when (or if) they reach that point.

I presume the Chairman's Corner will be slightly delayed in order to include some word on the Portugal trip and the Research Tree investor presentation tomorrow.

Regards.

A one-stop shop for all the 737 data you might ever need - https://www.benchchem.com/product/b606549

"The synergistic potential of Sra-737 with other DNA-damaging agents and targeted therapies, as well as its ability to modulate the tumor immune microenvironment, warrants continued clinical development."

With our patent now extending to early 2040s we might get more interest from big pharma.

I've pinged an e-mail off to SP on the off-chance the above link is worth putting on the SAR website somewhere. Obviously interested parties will have access to 'official' data packages but the above website seems to cover all bases.

Aaaaand back to sleep until there's news worth posting.....

Hi Krone, add in whatever ReceptorAi comes up with re CNS to 1802's potential and things could (finally) get very interesting here over the coming months. I think any potential partner would have to review all of the cancelled 1801 trial data to at least reassure themselves that 1801 is in the clear.

Despite the failure of the trial, SP should be banging the drum for CNS & 1802 at the forthcoming BioEurope event in a couple of weeks.

Yep, glad they answered all my questions apart from one submitted during the call re any chance of compensation if SAR weren't to blame in the trial.

Hi PCS - I agree it can be a waste of time chasing a 'maybe' but I suppose it all depends on the amount of money at stake. If we could claw back a significant amount of the trial costs then that would help pay for the retrial.

Hi Panagean - I presume it'll take a little bit of time to get to the bottom of this as the CRO will have to review their internal processes and also look at the health of animals used in other trials they might be running to ensure there's no cross-contamination or disease etc.

No sense pointing fingers until the answer is known but I do hope there is a route to get compensation if SAR are 100% in the clear.

Not sure if this is AI generated but worth a read to summarise today's RNS - https://joshthompson.co.uk/investing/sareum-2025-results-toxicology-halt-sdc1801/

Indeed, Mafuta. What we have seen over the last few weeks is a number of trumpets declaring it game over without having all the facts.

Yes, the root cause of the tox study failure remains to be seen but 1801 appears to be in the clear.

Glad to see 1802 finally out of translational studies and we've got far more funds in the bank than I'd expected.

Regards to all the regulars who kept their faith in the science.

Onwards!

The Dec 17th 2024 RNS indicated a holder had just over 5m shares (including warrants). Even with subsequent additional warrants being taken up by others, the TR-1 holder still appears to have about 3.65% of the company. I presume if they felt things were going south, they'd be out like a rocket which would require an updated TR-1, correct?

My current thinking is if the CRO/suppliers aren't to blame then it may have been the reformulated excipiant, hence the 'as originally scoped' statement suggesting the same mix of 1801 & excipiant used in the Oz trial will be put through the extended tox test. IF it was 'our' fault then why look for another CRO?

Not sure we'll have clarity tomorrow simply due to the BoD/CRO perhaps not having full details of the issue just yet.

Regards all.

Hi LJ - I hope that IF the collab with ReceptorAi goes well then there might be interest from US investors. Over the years I've looked at various new pharma/bio companies floating in the US and there's pots of cash waiting to be invested. Not saying we'd go to the NASDAQ (don't fit the criteria) but plenty of cash to be had from the other side of the pond.

Hi Silver - the BoD probably think if they announce they're in talks but things fall through, shareholders will storm the building with burning torches and pitchforks.

Hi PCS - yep, 'originally scoped' could mean anything; the BoD maybe wanted to use excipient/vehicle X but the CRO talked us into using Y and that led to the issues. Now they're looking for a CRO to run the trial using X. I'm not sure we'll get all the answers we want this week.

Will the BoD deliberately string-out their overview of last year's figures at the IM event thereby reducing the time available to answer submitted questions? If so, we'll then need to wait the customary 3-weeks it usually takes to get the written responses.

I think what we need is a 7am RNS outlining a whopping 737 deal.

Appreciate the reply, Damion.

So, Damion, is that your way of saying you're selling up and moving on?

Damion - I hope you're not suggesting the BoD have cherry-picked the data shown here in slides 11-13!

https://sareum.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Sareum-HY-Results-Presentation-2025.pdf

Afterall, the trial's results doc (available in link below) does state quite clearly, "Overall, there were no clinically significant safety concerns in the study and there were no deaths or SAEs considered related to SDC-1801. In all 3 study parts, the TEAEs were all mild or moderate in intensity."

https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=385555&isReview=true

Although you make reference to the 100mg dose, the cohort receiving 70mg twice daily (cohort D) had no issues other than one patient felt a bit itchy.

Regarding your point on a drug's half-life, "...it risks being ineffective in some and toxic in others...", I guess this is why some drugs are available from pharmacists in different strengths e.g. would you expect to prescribe the same doses to a ballerina and a rugby player?

1801 isn't over just yet.

My glass is cracked and there also appears to be someone's lipstick on the rim. And it's the devil's own job to get lipstick off your rim, dontcha know.

Hi Damion - whilst regulators can't unsee it, they can read a summary of contributing factors and understand root cause.