Member Info for Ivyspivey

Excellent summary Bermuda and does indeed highlight much of the logic of SCLP approach.
It would be fascinating to talk to LD about at what point did she decide to try and develop a Covid Vax based on Immunobody.
I suspect it was a mixture of wanting to do something/ other plans being held up but more crucially a discussion amongst her fellow scientists that led her her to concluding this approach could be be a real winner.
This creative spark off between leading scientists and colleagues is so important in these matters and then to have someone of Linda’s brilliance to progress the matter forward is critical.
As you say the trial data will prove the ultimate proof but so far this approach has certainly highlighted the weaknesses of other current approaches which yes have produced outstanding success gave also highlighted areas where improvements can be made

This bit highlights it

"Our study provides the clearest evidence to date that T cells induced by common cold coronaviruses play a protective role against SARS-CoV-2 infection."
Professor Ajit Lalvani
Director of the NIHR Respiratory Infections Health Protection Research Unit
Current vaccines do not induce an immune response to these internal proteins. The researchers say that – alongside our existing effective spike protein-targeting vaccines – these internal proteins offer a new vaccine target that could provide long-lasting protection because T cell responses persist longer than antibody responses which wane within a few months of vaccination.

Professor Ajit Lalvani, senior author of the study and Director of the NIHR Respiratory Infections Health Protection Research Unit at Imperial, says: “Our study provides the clearest evidence to date that T cells induced by common cold coronaviruses play a protective role against SARS-CoV-2 infection. These T cells provide protection by attacking proteins within the virus, rather than the spike protein on its surface.

"The spike protein is under intense immune pressure from vaccine-induced antibody which drives evolution of vaccine escape mutants. In contrast, the internal proteins targeted by the protective T cells we identified mutate much less. Consequently, they are highly conserved between the various SARS-CoV-2 variants, including omicron.

"New vaccines that include these conserved, internal proteins would therefore induce broadly protective T cell responses that should protect against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants.”

Hi Bermuda,
Chris’s comment is based on following data at Imperial which has been highlighted but not sure everyone got significance re SCLP.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjBmfi8vLP1AhWMIMAKHXRNAG0QFnoECAgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.imperial.ac.uk%2Fnews%2F233018%2Fcells-from-common-colds-cross-protect-against%2F&usg=AOvVaw3r3meVCRlh6KvWOR1nJDM2

Chris Smith on Breakfast specifically talking about Vaccine 2.0 which is additional modifications to existing Vax like adding valencies and separately new Vax targeting the conserved part of the virus for eg the Nucleocapsid part to be a Universal Covid Vax

Morning.Don’t think this has been posted.
Can’t claim any credit for finding this as posted on another platform but taken from Pharmafile Winter 21 as part of a bigger article.

“The pandemic has highlighted the growing need for DNA vaccines, in multiple areas including infectious diseases and cancer. Looking ahead to the future of healthcare during the precariousness of a pandemic, we spoke to Professor Lindy Durrant, CEO of Scancell, which develops immunotherapies simulating the body’s own immune system response. Scancell believe that DNA vaccines are one component of tackling diseases, believing the vaccines “give more sustained production of antigen which should lead to longer term protection than RNA vaccines.” This vaccination form is significant for the increasing demands and needs of global healthcare: “Dendritic cell-targeting DNA vaccines are cheap and easy to manufacture, and have long term stability at -20°C. They can be rapidly adapted to give protection against both infectious disease and cancer. They can be used for repeated injections or for injections for other viruses, whereas viral vector-based vaccines can only be used twice before the immunity to the vector overwhelms the response to the inserted virus.” For the many and varied needs presented by patients of infectious disease, this is significant.
Scancell uses a human monoclonal antibody to target cells that stimulate immune system response. This vaccine can be customised against a specific disease – a promising feature considering the changing nature of
disease we have witnessed over the past year, and even the past month. This has
the potential to change the current impact
of vaccination. “A vaccine encoding both nucleocapsid protein linked to a modified Fc and receptor-binding domain should stimulate long-term memory B and T cells, and should give sustained protection over several years. This will give less opportunities for variants to arise and prevent people from having to be vaccinated every six months.
Scancell shared that its vaccine “targets antigens to dendritic cells to give more
potent T cell responses that lead to long-term memory, and still give high titre neutralising antibody responses. The nucleocapsid protein is more highly conserved, giving better protection against variants.”
As for the future, Professor Durrant looks forward to “simpler delivery systems for DNA vaccines. Currently we use a mechanical needle free device which is acceptable, but a simple injection would be more reasonable”. Durrant also hopes for “better investment
in vaccines that give broad protection (i.e. all coronaviruses – not just COVID-19), and sustained protection for 5-10 years should be developed now so they can be rapidly adapted when the next pandemic hit“

Just thought a very good article.

https://www.immuno-oncologyeurope.com/

Lindy one of speakers

Morning,
Nice articles and to me they are designed to be polyvalent to as opposed multi valent but does not stop LD from tweeking if a particular dominant strain appears

Krafty,We are not far apart in that we both recognise the short term priority.
The Pfizer boss is simply talking about using the current Vax every 3-4 months based on hindsight of current knowledge based on Omicron- it is the suggestion that this was somehow planned in advance to simply maximise profit that is my main objection.You simply can’t predict with certainty about whether a Vax will work how much / long it will work for.
It is probably others who will likely be more interested in developing newer Vax Approaches as Pfizer already have their successful offering and can tweak the Technology fairly quickly if required.
As I have said I believe the SCLP approach has proved very relevant in potentially predicting the type of immune responses needed to create an effective universal Covid Vax but it is one of several novel approaches.
If it is proven to work then it will be fantastic and very good for SH but just as Pfizer and Moderna have done well don’t forget that other huge players like Merck faiked

Morning Krafty,
They targeted the Spike protein and pushed ahead as those platform technologies were already advanced in other spaces both infectious diseases and cancer and the critical need was to develop potential solutions as quickly as possible.
If they had targeted the Nucleocapsid protein to start with it would have taken much longer to develop the Vax with all those consequences as no one knew at the time what the relative influence of nABs vs T Cells would be.
Linda’s approach looks very promising from a science point of view but there are no guarantees any approach will work just because it looks good in theory.So SCLP approach was always going to be 2nd generation as they were simply not far enough down the track at the start of the Pandemic as compared to others.
I can guarantee if it it was a slam dunk approach it would have produced a deal by now.
No one is doubting LD brilliance but there are others equally as knowledgable and gifted at the science.
It is more those that think it is all about Pharma conspiring to simply screw the world to earn profit
Good p1 results here and that is huge for SCLP

Evening some interesting mentions of SCLP in recent days and their approach which hopefully should prove very successful.
However some of the comments about the motivation of big pharma in developing Covid Vax are ludicrous like they planned a 1 short interval between boosters to maximise profit or they only targeted Spike protein as a short term solution,do not understand mutation or looked to develop a longer term solution.
Developing a Vax is a very risky business with no guarantee of success however promising the science is so you cannot predict how long it will last or how effective they are in advance.
Just be pleased they have proved largely effective and saved many lives

Hi Burble,
I did not realise that the immune response was against the Vector as well and that it had a longer effect.
I have been selling Vector Viral Vaccines for a long time and the platform used is identical to the ChAd one in terms of technology.
The Vector is not affected by either the CMR or Humoral response as essentially it is simply to deliver the DNA gag and envelope part into the target and then just naturally disappears as I would expect a Chimpanzee Adenovirus to do so within a human.
Just very interested in your thoughts as you know a lot more about this space than me

In case it was not posted here

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1037560/100_Days_Mission_-_First_Implementation_Report.pdf

Morning Rab,
I think the Boris Meeting mentioned in your link referred to the launch of the 100 day rollout which was last Thursday rather than next week.
Hope I am wrong as there are so many Meetings and developments but the 100 day publication was pretty significant in determine the global way forward.
Did not contain much mention about DNA platforms specifically but did have a nice mention of need to develop needle free injections for future Pandemic control

I Calvert,
Just found it interesting as TBH I had not looked at outcome measures in detail as I presumed efficacy was a priority.
Given others comments/ the fact it is a p2 trial/ in cancer trials at that stage efficacy is usually considered more important than safety as it is a terminal condition.
However, given it is a Combo trial it is obviously going to look at safety and tolerability as they have not done a combined p1 but just thought efficacy which is the main potential driver of the SP here would have been more prominent

Sorry TF Dumbas- predictive text

Hi Dunbar,
Despite my earlier comments if you look at all the primary and 2ndary outcome measures they are much more in line with safety and tolerability which were highlighted by yourself rather than efficacy which I think many including me thought was the main purpose of the trial.
However these patients are already due to receive Keytruda hence nit being denied any standard of care which as you say would be unethical with a condition like melanoma

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04079166?term=Scancell&draw=2&rank=2

A Phase 2, Multicenter, Open-Label Study of SCIB1 in Patients With Advanced Unresectable Melanoma Receiving Pembrolizumab

Hi Dunbar,
My understanding is that they are not denying anyone the standard of care Keytruda so this trial is about efficacy primarily and the synergistic effect SCIB 1 can bring to the table.
They will be measuring safety as a combination as the safety of both Keytruda and SCIB 1 individually has already been assessed in p1 and subsequent trials.

Hi Violin Dog,
It is simply a retweet of the SCIB1 Combo news.

Morning Burble,
My understanding is that there is no virtual coverage so not a hybrid meeting.
It may signal a change within SCLP to try and portray a more corporate image and nothing wrong with that but the only downside imo it is that normally that means less retail investors attend and leads to a different atmosphere than previous AGMs.
Personally I found the format of previous ones quite suitable for private investors and gave them a real chance to engage with the BoD whereas the AGMs I have attended at corporate venues in London tend to be more “ formal affairs”.
Must admit I have not checked out the London venue as not attending but normally they follow a similar pattern.
ATB to all that go and look forward to any feedback.
GL with your check up today C7.