We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Afternoon and not sure why people are expecting the next trial update to be very soon.
Traditionally Biopharma do not give ongoing updates on trial progress unless significant milestones are passed which generally happens rarely during the course of a trial.
I can think of examples where you do get more regular updates such as when the next cohort group happens but SCLP do not normally fall into that category.
I understand the “ anticipation” that some thought would happen at the time of the AACR meeting but normally SCLP waits until say a results reporting RNS which we can predict the time of or when significant news occurs.
There just seems a discrepancy between the expectations of some who seem to anticipate a “ running commentary” which imo is unlikely and the normal SCLP practice of issuing infrequent updates.
That is why when SCLP do issue an RNS trial update it is so worthwhile not only as it usually contains very good news but also they are conservative when it comes to updating the market.
Enjoy the w/ end but patience is the watchword
Thanks EE,
Makes sense and good to have your experience on board in explaining these situations.I find this invaluable when usually it is “normal housekeeping” but can lead to speculation both good and bad.
Morning EE,
I view of your experience I understand the historical bit but why do you think they have included the reference to funding.
The Board considered both historical practices and on-going funding requirements in this regar
Thanks in advance
Yep footy a bit like dealing in shares.Ups and downs but stay in the game and get rid of the “ parasites”
Not like you Erik to try and wind folk up thought you left that to Coggy on Tsbs lol
Hope all is well and could we finally get finally be making some sort of progress.
Hi Botski if I recall correctly then I do think the SCIB 1 results were superior however I wonder if this quote from the link is relevant.
The study is “important because it’s the first randomized study of a cancer vaccine with a clinically meaningful endpoint: stopping tumors from coming back,” said Dr. Margaret Callahan, research director of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Immunotherapeutics Program, who expressed cautious optimism about the findings.
“This is an exciting advance in the field of cancer vaccines, an area notoriously tough to make progress in,” Callahan said.
The use of the worlds first “ randomised” may highlight the difference as I never understood why the compelling results of SCIB 1 never seemed to get external traction and I recall a suggestion that the trial lists picked were not randomised and of as you say smaller cohorts but welcome any other views/ comments.
Lots of coverage of cancer Vax which can only hugely lift the profile of SCLP
https://t.co/Bxrck6jOMl
https://t.co/jrb71bkdTO
Talk of a big shift in cancer treatment towards Vax at AACR
Bojo not sure if you were around in 2015 when the original meeting with KF occurred but it was a real feather in the cap for RG/LD to attract interest of KF and JW to act as trial investigators for SCIB 1.
The inability to get the US IND was a major disappointment based on the fantastic efforts to get such high profile individuals on board.
If they were to announce something as significant along the original lines for Modi 1 then we really will be at the races ( no pun intended whilst Grand National is about to start)
Hi TF,
Not particularly a great find as only a simple google search.I did notice KF name on the AACR programme and building on what others have highlighted about his importance it reminded me of the RG/LD breakfast meeting which led to the SCIB 1 interest and proposed US trial etc if I recall correctly.
I recall the description of the meeting which lasted much longer than expected and the obvious interest from KF.
It highlighted the importance of attending these events and although AACR is huge if you wanted to make a big splash then at least trying to arrange a Meeting with KF in advance would make sense.Anyway I am sure he would be very interested in any Modi trial results from a purely scientific view and even if a Meeting was nit planned these events can offer a great opportunity to advance the Science and when you have 2 recognised global experts who already know each other it seems that the chance of some type of discussion even informal makes sense.
As I said it may or may not be planned as LD May have a different perspective as a Scientist and a CEO but it would be of mutual interest between both parties even if there could be many more demands in both of their time
Morning CW and BS,
Yes Keith Flaherty a huge name from the last and we remember the breakfast meeting which if I recall correctly was “ opportunistic”.
Well KF is editor in chief of AACR and a Fellow as well as his numerous other accolades.
Given his obvious respect for LD and her team it would seem “ likely” that their paths would cross this week abd would love to be a fly on the wall
Afternoon.
Fully agree RR and AB the Vulpes note is imo well balanced and gives a good insight as to the undoubted potential here and it is nice to see their views expressed in such a way.
The note does highlight a bit of their frustration again shared by many on here that SCLP need to put as much weight behind the commercialisation and monetisation of the science to truly reward SH as they have in developing the Science.
I think it is refreshing that a fully invested and well informed party can come up with a comprehensive and balanced report which they seriously conclude should be reflected by a much higher SP.
Hi TF
Did you also see the below link which is contained in Burbles article and gives some idea of CEPI approach re future Virus Vax which you asked about
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/apr/07/covid-vaccines-golden-era-pandemic-techology-diseases
Morning TF,
Personally feel that SCLP are redirecting their effort away from infectious disease and back to their core strategy of oncology and again is partly evidenced by non appearance at World Vaccine Congress currently going on where likes of CEPI have a big presence.
Makes a lot of sense in terms of risk/ reward and priority of resource allocation within SCLP both in human and finance terms so fine by me and of course some of the wider lessons learned by Covid trial such as use of Pharmajet and Avidmab will imo prove invaluable in helping SCLP move forward in oncology trials
Looks like their platforms are a really good way of getting DNA Vaccines into the patient and that SCLP has made a very good choice.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/2/280
Yep TF,
I am not suggesting a CH replacement as in a CEO just someone who has the relevant commercial experience and expertise.Their exact position can be decided by mutual discussion but needs to be a Senior appointment