The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
Hi Chester,
Thanks for thoughts and as we know there are lots of potential shots at goal and the expectation of some important clinical data to provide a catalyst for a rise in SP.
You are correct in that as far as the vast majority of PIs are concerned it is a series of what ifs and maybes and that appears to be the case for SCLP.Effectively let us continue to develop the science and we will see what the data brings.
Personally I like to know what their strategic plan is and pathway to monetisation which is an integral part of all pharma Company's whether big or small.
A couple of threats which are obvious .
Firstly ,we have no idea whatsoever if the data will be positive and the first data to be released will have a major effect on the SP up or down.
You quote Approvals.Well the Covid Vax has always been intended as a booster as so many people have already been Vaccinated there is little market for primary courses
The move to needle free of SCIB1/CI is a very welcome move and yes SCLP May be confident it works just as well but until we have actual data we simply cannot be sure.
How do you know for certain that the trials are producing early positive data ,that is an assumption but there is little evidence to support that .The numbers of trial patients is very small and you simply cannot draw any statistically significant conclusions about whether it is positive or not.
There is no interim trial analysis even and yes we can reasonably conclude that the Covid Vax is safe but we have no idea about how effective it is vs Covid variants even if we have some basic immune response data.
Again with a Odx you simply cannot directly extrapolate mouse data into humans especially on basis of a possible handful of patients.
Looking at the Glycan collaborations again we have no idea of how close “ deals” May or not be in the offing.
I am very positive about the prospects here but we must learn from past events like the SCIB 1 “ compelling data” well not compelling enough to get a deal etc .
In fact I think the Immunobody platform was put on the back burner until Covid came along and also the move away from electroporation so let us not get too presumptuous until we have real data.
That is why I want to know the strategic pathway as there is a history here of changing the goalposts and trying to improve the technology by say adding Avidmab to the other platforms or adding an peptide to Modi 1.
That is fine but I do wish they followed a specific but flexible plan like a commercially oriented bio pharma rather than a pure science play which occasionally seems more like the way an academic institution behaves of seeking the perfect science and ending up not assigning priorities to which of the platforms they should concentrate resources on.
To repeat myself I am very positive about the science but let us be under no illusions there are other AIM bio pharma where the PIs are just as enthusiastic about the prospects and where it may e
Good discussion and clear to me as others that it is only hard data that will lead to a rerate here and that is on line with what SCLP have been stating for years. What has happened in the interim is the increasing range of options as to where this data will come from.
I do believe that SCLP is still not well balanced between the undoubted real strength of the scientific expertise and representation and the less well defined “ commercial” aspects of the business.
I think that science bias places much more emphasis on the data to attract large numbers of new investors which in turn will help drive the SP upwards. This bias was fine when SCLP was purely a R and D focused business but I think with the range of assets in the portfolio they need to consider much more about strategic and commercial pathways towards monetising the assets.
Yrs the data will,ultimately decide on the outcomes here but I do consider some guidance on how SCLP see the strategic pathway forward re competing priorities in the way investor presentations used to include but do seem to have fallen by the wayside somewhat due in part to a scientific bias and of course no need to raise funds for a very long time.
Seems very much like it and in my experience any increase in sentiment including potential competitors in a space like cancer Vaccines actually benefits everyone who operates in that space.
As SCLP has a major presence then I always welcome any increase in interest and always see potential competitors as positive rather than a negative threat.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/12/amazon-partners-with-fred-hutchinson-on-cancer-vaccine-trial.html
Hi All,
C7- as the posts seem to have disappeared I can’t remember your exact words or recall the posts you refer to but I totally condemn any comments by anyone along the lines you mentioned and those sentiments are completely unacceptable imo.
I hope that you are well but not fully aware of your current situation given your past history but nothing so important as good health and the efforts of SCLP in successfully providing answers to improve patient outcomes are even more of a priority than having a positive return on our investment.
The good news is that success in the first will inevitably lead to a nice monetary return for everyone here.
Hi Crumbs,
I certainly did suggest I hoped they were in process of recruiting an external “ heavyweight commercial” appointment to help take SCLP forward in a more balanced way after the recent strengthening of the Scientific side.
My criticism of bringing of RG back was purely if it was going to be a longer term strategy but since then we have found out it was an interim measure to help lessen some of LD burden and he is the perfect person to step in and as they have mentioned they are still seeking a commercial COO then I am happy apart from the steep drop in the SP here
Hi Flakey,
Hope all is good and nice to see you here though the drop below the recent trading range is more to do with the change in Covid sentiment rather than any change in fundamentals here.
Enjoy the w/ end
I found this quite interesting and presume the SCLP Approach will generate both S and N AB response as well as T cells.
https://reut.rs/3cFwkUu
Hi Ruck,
If this is true and I really like RG and respect his knowledge in this area but I do feel that they should be looking externally for a major commercial appointment.The danger of constantly going internally is the bias towards “ cosiness” and the absence of new ways of working and experience which an external appointment would essentially bring.
Sometimes it is easier to judge how best to progress from the outside.
Sorry TF did not realise my link is exactly the same as the one you posted earlier just from a d different platform.
Many thanks fir that plus your BBC one you are turning into a good source on info these days.
Very nice explanation of how Covid immune response works and some pointers for future.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00214-3
Very good news this morning and confirms all is well with manu of SCOV2 and no real impediments to completion of SA arm.
Also confirmation of pre clinical activity vs Omicron a very big positive and if replicated should confirm choice of SCOV2 for U.K. arm
Or are they going to boost half of initial ones with SCOV1 and the other half with SCOV2 then I can see how the difference could be measured but as they are only planning Covid Vaccine as a booster rather than prime and boost which I was initially told by CH they were testing .
Hi Ray,
Have looked at CT site protocols and your interpretation seems correct about each patient getting 4 doses.
It still seems an odd way of doing it to me but as long as regulators are happy then fine.
Apologies for any confusion but as I say it seems an odd protocol to me.
OK Ray and Bermuda I need to read the trial protocol as I did not read it as each of 40 get 4 doses so two of SCOV1 and then another two of SCOV2 but 20 get SCOV 1 and then another 20 get SCOV 2 with both lots of 20 split by half get ID and half get IM so creating 4 study arms of 10 patients each.
It defies logic to me to get 4 doses when it is a prime and boost so 2 doses you are testing.How can you accurately compare the difference between SCOV 1 and 2 if they are getting 4 doses so 2 of SCOV1 and then another 2 of SCOV2 how can you tell the difference when you will still have an immune response from the first two doses.
Also that only creates two study arms when I am sure they are looking to compare 4.
Hi Bermuda,
I actually used your quotes in an earlier post.My point was that hopefully the main reason for halting the trial was the fact it was hard to recruit people who had not been in recent contact with Omicron and that has passed.
Being Covid free by PCR and allowing a 25% excess for being Covid naive opens up a much bigger pool than 100% naive.
Ray do appreciate your thoughts and nothing to say which will receive SCOV 1 and 2 in what order. Howeber the SCOV 2 could only be done on day 113 at the earliest ( think to allow completion of manu) so makes sense to me given the original choice of SA as a relatively accessible population that they do the 20 SCOV 1 patients first during the first 113 days and certainly we know the 16 patients will be SCIV 1 as All were treated before day 113 of the trial starting.
From CT website re SA Trial
This study is expected to enrol 40 participants (20 per study arm) at one study centre in South Africa. At least 15 participants in each arm should be negative for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 upon entry into the study.
So you don’t need all 20 in each study arm to be Covid AB free just a minimum of 15.
AB as for trying to predict timelines it really is not difficult to work it out what you do need is any clear starting points such as FPI which we have.Now we have had a delay then we need to know when it resumes and then of course we have the 2nd part of the p1 in U.K. and SA
Hi Ray I may be wrong and the SCOV1 protocol means the initial 16 would be given both ID and IM doses.
However if memory serves me right the SCOV2 was not likely to begin until the first 20 had been recruited as that was at a later manu stage.