Member Info for jint

Sparkyboy1
It was stated quite clearly at the beginning of the AGM that no audio recordings were allowed.

ATB

Doc83, if it is from the ACTIV program there isn’t that many candidates:
For outpatient ACTIV 6 there’s:
Fluticasone
Enrollment closed - doubtful I would think, inhaled, belongs to a class of drugs known as steroids.

Ivermectin 400 mcg
Enrollment closed -.again imo doubtful.

Ivermectin 600mcg
Continuing enrollment - ???

That leave's
Fluvoxamine
Continuing enrollment - as Joey D stated as a possible.
Then there’s us on ACTIV2

xviolet,
I believe that’s the link you’re looking for.

https://rethinkingclinicaltrials.org/news/grand-rounds-july-15-2022-overview-of-accelerating-covid-19-therapeutic-interventions-and-vaccines-activ-public-private-partnership-and-lessons-learned-stacey-j-adam-phd/

This may have been posted before, nevertheless a nice reminder.
I think we, SNG001 fit into this landscape perfectly..

https://www.medicalcountermeasures.gov/media/14715/28_goldberg_talk_for_bid.pdf

ATB

Thought it worth highlighting this section.

‘those with the risk OAS1 haplotype (AAA for rs1131454-A, rs10774671-A and rs2660-A) would benefit from this treatment the most because of their impaired ability to clear the virus without treatment. This haplotype is very common, with a 57% frequency in the general European population, 59% in East-Asian individuals and 15% in individuals of African ancestry.’

Full section including the above text:

We observed a decrease in SARS-CoV-2 expression after treating cells with interferons (either IFN-ß or IFN-?) before or after infection, suggesting that interferons can overcome insufficient viral clearance. Indeed, our exploratory analysis of a clinical trial with pegIFN-?1 revealed that OAS1 haplotypes were associated with the rate of SARS-CoV-2 clearance in the placebo group, but not the interferon treatment group. Thus, our results suggest that early treatment with interferons could compensate for SARS-CoV-2 clearance impaired due to OAS1 variants. Although this treatment accelerated viral clearance in all patients, those with the risk OAS1 haplotype (AAA for rs1131454-A, rs10774671-A and rs2660-A) would benefit from this treatment the most because of their impaired ability to clear the virus without treatment. This haplotype is very common, with a 57% frequency in the general European population, 59% in East-Asian individuals and 15% in individuals of African ancestry. In our clinical trial, patients were treated with a single subcutaneous injection of pegIFN-?1 (ref. 26). Due to the restricted expression of its receptors, IFN-?1, a type III interferon, is well tolerated, without causing systemic side effects or promoting inflammatory cytokine release, which are often associated with the administration of type I interferons39. Recently, preliminary results of a phase 3 clinical trial (TOGETHER trial, NCT04727424, 1,936 COVID-19 outpatients treated with pegIFN-?1) showed a significant reduction of COVID-19-related hospitalization and death40. Inhaled nebulized type I interferons, IFNß-1a41 and IFNa2b42,43, are also being tested as an early treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection, with promising results.

For those who wish to read the whole paper.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-022-01113-z

References inclusion P Monk:

Monk, P. D. et al. Safety and efficacy of inhaled nebulised interferon beta-1a (SNG001) for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Respir. Med. 9, 196–206 (2021).

Hi Manifesto,
No problem.

ATB.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/interferon-treatment-may-reduce-severity-covid-19-people-certain-genetic-factors

Courtesy of Reddit
Page 3 & 4
https://conferences.medicom-publishers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/E_MCR-ATS-2022.pdf

Manifesto,
No problem.
ATB

Manifesto,

I think you mean Ray Jordan :)

https://www.prweek.com/article/1741002/pharma-comms-veteran-ray-jordan-launches-consultancy-putnam-insights

TommyD_19
Totally agree with your last post, it was said at the AGM that Synairgen didn’t have total control over the end points for Sprinter. It was also stated the Authorities were more interested in end points that could empty hospital beds than an end point that included death. Bearing in mind hospitals and governments were under extreme pressure at the time.

It was also stated at the AGM following the deep dive they now know their sub-set target group.

I’m sure those running the Platform Trials will take into consideration Synairgen’s gained expertise from the Sprinter trial and will try to accommodate accordingly. So I don’t envisage our inclusion into a PT will result in us waiting an age for results, they (PT) must be so much better for the experience gained from previous PT’s which were carried out when all hell was letting loose.

Hi Doc83,
Yes perhaps Phillip Monk isn’t a natural presentation persona when dealing with the amalgamation of scientific and financial issues, no doubt more comfortable in just a scientific arena.

I must admit the remuneration and salary questions being fired in quite incessantly made me winch at times :) still fair play to the questioning no complaints from me :)

Hi Doc83
Thinking back now, perhaps he was quite influential amongst the BoD, there appeared to be on several occasions where the other board’s members turned to him, hard to say whether it was for tacit approval or perhaps for him to join in to reaffirm answers with extra information.

Of course I may be on a completely different wavelength to your thoughts, as for me the meeting passed by so quickly and trying to take recap notes and listen was a real task most of the time.

By the way both yours and Wigsters recap notes of the AGM were excellent and your hard work deserved the appreciation you received on this board, shame we didn’t get to speak to each other.

ATB.

Hi Manifesto,

I don’t recall that question being raised, they were as shocked as us with the unexpected results as was
intimated at the AGM by the BoD.

My personal opinion (not a mistake) is they needed time to gather their thoughts (rather than rush out a statement) and to fully digest the shortfalls in the Sprinter trial results. Hence the announcement of the deep dive which I was content to wait for rather than having an early statement or Q&A session with no real substance and leaving us still scratching our heads in frustration.

Having spoke to RM after the AGM with a couple of others (he came over to us), I cannot fault his visible commitment and determination to enable the successful commercialisation of SNG001.

He came across honest and genuine, I’m very content to have him as our CEO.

ATB.

Good morning soonbetime,
I too mainly observe on here but thought it worth replying to your post.

I attended the AGM and from my observations the BoD certainly gave a robust impression that they are driven to the successful commercialisation of SNG001 and not of one wanting to remain in the backwaters of research & development.

As an aside, they were extremely approachable and took the time to talk to individual investors prior (in welcoming) and more importantly after the AGM, from my perspective I came away invigorated that this company will succeed in the commercialisation of SNG001.

ATB

Relevant today as it was back in 2004.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/10/2/03-0482_article

IFN-ß 1a exhibited potent antiviral activity at doses that have already been shown to have acceptable safety profiles in animals (10). Thus, we report the identification of a compound that may be suitable for rapid development as a treatment for SARS-CoV infection.

I know corticosteroids are not our flavour at the present time but our PCT patent has just been published for COPD

Suggest reading claims, I’ll have to do it later as out at the moment.

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2022053792&_cid=P21-L0UYRT-25086-1

*Datamagik