Member Info for HotblackDesiato

Why sir, you do tease us greatly with such posts! :-)

Hope all is well at WIP HQ.

Hi Aber - yeah, I know what you mean re the deal and wonder what conversations are going on at SAR HQ.

Are you suggesting that you'd only accept a cancer treatment if you were invested in it? No need to reply.

Once the ink is dry on the GSK/Sierra deal we're bound to see some progress on 737. The vote is at the end of this month so not long until we find out what their intentions are for 737. You never know, maybe GSK specifically want to attack cancer with a 737+'X' combo.

Colorectal took my friend last year so I understand how important this is.

Despite c19 no longer being headline news, it isn't resigned to history. Some of you might be interested in a presentation given at a previous JAK Inhibitors Drug Development Summit - https://info.hansonwade.com/l/448062/2021-03-31/9whjl1/448062/1617180402DMWA5ck5/Joaquin_Espinosa_University_of_Colorado_School_of_Medicine_Jak_Inhibit.pdf

SAR plans to participate in the next summit (tomorrow & Wed) but I don't know if this has been confirmed - give us a tweet, Tim!

https://jak-drugdevelopment.com/day-one/

Thanks SCH - yeah, that would explain things. It just seems you can't do anything in the US without some form of litigation.

I was looking for any further info on the US lawsuit being brought against Sierra re the GSK offer and it appears more law firms are getting involved. A search for 'class lawsuit sierra oncology' shows there are at least 3 different law firms persuing the notion that the Sierra Board breached its fiduciary duties to shareholders by failing to conduct a fair process, and whether GSK is paying too little for the Company.

It's a bit of a head scratcher since GSK beat 6 other companies by raising their initial offer of $46 per share to $55 per share. If 6 other pharmas weren't prepared to top GSK then should we assume the price is reasonable despite what we think of 737's potential?

I could understand things if it were one law firm chancing their luck but with at least 2 more joining the fun you do begin to wonder.

If only they'd asked RMM for a valuation then all this could be avoided!

Just going back to the Primary Outcome section from https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT02797964?view=results for a moment, it states - 'The disease control rate (DCR) was defined as the number of subjects achieving complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + stable disease (SD) per RECIST 1.1 criteria. Since no subjects achieved CR or PR in this study, the DCR represents the proportion of subjects in each group who achieved SD.'

A definition of 'stable disease' can be found here https://www.verywellhealth.com/definition-of-stable-disease-2249195

"Cancer doctors use the term stable disease to describe a tumor that is neither growing nor shrinking. Specifically, it means that there was neither an increase in size of more than 20% nor a decrease in size of more than 30% since the initial baseline measurement."

+20%/-30% seems quite a wide margin but the above link is definitely worth reading fully to get a better understanding and maybe temper expectations.

However the thing to keep in mind is that when 737 is used as part of a combo, that's when the magic happens.

Anyway, enough tosh from me for today.

Evening SOG - I'll read that link tomorrow over breakfast (unless that plan gets trumped by a CTA RNS!)

Just to give this its own thread rather than adding to the Connecting The Dots one.

I've found the SAP - https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ProvidedDocs/64/NCT02797964/SAP_001.pdf

Not had time to read through it yet so just posted for info.

Hi SOG,

Thanks for the reply - yes, I knew the study was to assess the MTD however as the Adverse Events data indicates, there were some events noted.

As per the report, "An AE was defined as any untoward, undesired, or unplanned medical occurrence in a subject administered SRA737. All AEs and SAEs were assessed for seriousness, causality, and expectedness.

As specified in the Statistical Analysis Plan, the frequency of each AE was evaluated in the overall Safety Evaluable Population (all enrolled subjects who receive at least 1 dose of SRA737) of patients with advanced solid tumors, irrespective of tumor type. All AEs collected are included in the summary."

As I can't find the Statistical Analysis Plan and the above quote mentions assessing causality, I'm just wondering if 737 had not been administered, what are the odds that the events would have happened anyway?

Either way, it's all getting quite interesting the closer we get to CTAs and so on.

Hi Des,

The one thing to perhaps keep in mind is that the deals we are currently seeing are for drugs that are a bit further along the road than ours. Although we should have the CTA for 1801 this month, it'll be some time until we get the initial trial results. However once we know what the BoD intend to target with 1801 then we might see a license deal.

As for GSK/Sierra, the vote for the takeover is at the end of this month. There's still time for counter-offers. Let's assume for now that 737 is just a sideshow - if Momo is a wonderdrug then surely we'd see another pharma make an offer on it. What happens if other pharmas want 737 but not Momo?

I was trying to gauge the effectiveness of 737 in the recent trial (scroll down to almost the end to see the Adverse Events data) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT02797964 but as I'm not a doctor my guessing is quite limited. Bearing in mind the health of the test subjects prior to the trial, are the Adverse Events nothing unexpected or serious? Also, were they a direct result of being given 737? Beats me!

Anyway, whilst digging I also came across something that people might find useful https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/phase-1-2-clinical-trial

Regards.

Hi Desamax - my guess would be that with 478 exhibitors it would be too easy to get lost in the noise. Mind you, Sierra are there so I expect them to 'big up' 737.

Hi Glen, not sure there's any connection with us.

The drug referred to by the article is from Amgen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sotorasib

No doubt the doctor referred to in the article works with a wide variety of potential therapies. Our time will come soon.

Morning SCH,

Yeah, there was a bit of a prolonged scuffle. Some ruffian showed up but a benign force went to town on them.

Regards.

Hi Blue,

I doubt it was a regular poster. Any genuine shareholder here should know the score:

1. The BoD aren't spaffing funds away on vanity projects. If they were then they'd have swish offices with staff to maintain squeaky chairs and be attending conferences in Barbados every other month.

2. Yes, deadlines have been missed. But as anyone who has read up on how SAR operate knows, they engage others to carry out specific tasks e.g. tox studies, manufacturing, patent lawyers and so on. Shareholders have to ask where any slippage occured i.e. was it self-inflicted or due to subcontracted work? I can't think of any line of business that hits every deadline.

3. Where are the big-buck deals? The China deal was probably the best on offer at the time - considering the compound was handed back and effectively shelved tells us quite a bit. As for 737, it's been mentioned often that we weren't involved in negotiations however that doesn't mean to say we've been given the ****ty end of the stick. A minor portion of a potentially multi-billion dollar drug is worth having.

If a new poster walks like a troll and grunts like a troll then...

Anyway, time for some Scandi-noir. Did someone just mutter 'trippelmord'?

n/t

Evening Krone, the SAR events webpage notes the JAK Inhibitors Drug Development Summit takes place next week.

https://jak-drugdevelopment.com/

If the CTA is still on track then it can't be too far away now. Would it be too much to ask for the 1801 CTA to be submitted on Monday, just in time for the JAK summit?

Do a search for stock market bubble. (Caution: some bubbles burst with a loud pop.)

Hi Aber - just wait 'til they find out there's no trading on Thurs/Fri.