Member Info for jive_turkey

Either tomorrow or next week after the conference.

Why would Avacta present at Digital Asset Technology (DAT) Conference? That has nothing to do with anything even remotely to do with Avacta. A quick look at the programme shows, as expected, that Avacta are not presenting.

Hi Greedo, my comment was in response to ChaiHa.

A company does not need to be profitable before listing on Nasdaq. If that was the case, there would not be a single startup, or clinical stage biotech on Nasdaq. Moderna only became profitable after the launch of its vaccine, but was listed years before. Bicylce Therapeutics, Intellia and many others still don't have an approved drug, and are totally reliant on placings for cash. There are different routes to a Nasdaq listing (4 to be exact) and profitability is only one, and not one that is used by biotechs.

Yes, there is a $1 minimum to the share price, but that is easily gotten by simply reverse-splitting a stock. Or listing US shares as say 10x the value of UK shares (per share).

The bottom line is that Avacta can list whenever they want, although the process takes time and some house cleaning and restructuring is generally required.

@dsymons - That is not likely to be true. Tempus will not provide any funds. At best, they will allow "free" access to their database and tools, and Avacta will allow their data to be uploaded into the databases.

The SP went up 10% yesterday based on nothing and dropped today by 5% for the same reason. Traders trade and the SP varies.

Easy to split affimers for Tx and Dx.

Nothing changes really. The share price on AIM and the share price on Nasdaq are independent, although they tend to be close. So you're holding on AIM would have no changes, 100k is still 100k. Typically, the share price increases at the listing, simply due to the fact that more investors have direct access (you can buy Avacta in the US already, but it is more difficult and need a professional management company) to buy shares.

4D did this a few years ago and had an initial bounce (100% if i recall correctly) but then steadily dropped until they went bust over the following year or two. They had a bad loan, and apparently didn't get US investors excited about their long term commercial prospects.

Summit Therapeutics did something similar, dual listing (AIM and Nasdaq) but then was very successful, and eventually delisted from AIM altogether. Now worth $22B.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all the information in the RNS was from the poster. And you wouldn't include the same case study on two different posters. The patient is still receiving treatment (he's the one on the far right of the waterfall plot...how do I know, because that's the way this type of plot works, data can only get better as it is best response, and his best response cannot get worse). He's been on drug for >15 months.

It's possible that they will have to wait until the conference is over...so Tuesday/Wed.

They don't present until tomorrow, I believe. I expect we'll get a link to the poster (or just saying that the link is on the website) on Monday.

@BV - it could be that they might experiment with dosage in P1B, but I don't think that's the plan. I think the idea is just to select the tumour type for P2 (to maximise the chance of (early?) approval).

@Aldebaran - Yes, P1B may be relatively quick, as the patients can all be dosed at the same time. However, there will certainly be some delays, as it will take some time to recruit the patients.

But I doubt if any of those three tumour types that you suggest will be selected. Two of the chosen types are likely to be sub-types of soft tissue sarcoma and the third is a bit of a wild card, but my guess would be 'head and neck'. Avacta mentioned pancreatic at the beginning of P1a (3 years ago), but those patients have not seen significant tumour shrinkage (which could be for multiple reasons - i.e, previous treatment), so that one seems unlikely now.

P1B will be (so we're told) relatively small cohorts (no dose escalation, just a single dose level) for three indications (i.e., 3 tumor types). Based on the results, one of these tumor types will be taken to P2. I'm not sure how many patients will be in each P1B cohort, but it's likely to be between 10 and 30. For P2 it will be closer to 60-100.

Sepsis was one of the indications that we were told would have an affimer diagnostic solution, top of the list after the covid test. I'm not one to bash the LFT days, the market was huge and worth going after, and the cards were stacked against Avacta. But I am a bit baffled at the lack of any affimer based tests since. Yeah, there was the vitamin one, but that was mentioned once and never again. It's still likely going through development and testing. But I was expecting a list of the tests that they are developing in order of priority. Strange.

@WAG - yes, the Q2W patients will continue to be dosed even after P1a ends, assuming that they continue to see benefits and the side effect profile is manageable.

No, the expansion phase cannot be run in parallel. Unfortunately, that needs to wait until Q2W is finished. Yes, there is reason to go to C4, or at least there could be. On the one hand, I believe that they have already proven that ava6k is significantly better than straight dox, at least for a large number of tumour types. But if the safety profile remains good in C3 and C4, then the higher the dose the more likely that complete responses will be seen.

It's a pain to wait (although the Q2W has been going significantly faster than Q3W...which is good and I think shows that the clinicians are now fully onboard and want to accelerate this through), but there are benefits to continuing to C4 and potentially beyond (although they have stated multiple times that C4 would be the last).

@BITL - this is how Fiona McLaughlin described it to me last year (2023) at the AGM during lunch.

The reason why I spoke to her about this, is that (perhaps you remember) there used to be a lot of confusion about whether ava6k could go past the 450-550 mg/m2 cumulative dose of doxorubicin normally used. i.e., if the 'effective' dose of ava6k would count towards the cumulative total. If that had been the case, then C5-C7 would have only been able to have 1 or 2 doses. The good news is that that was not true. It is estimate from the blood (using the area under the curve - AUC - that BV mentioned).

@BITL - This is effectively the amount of dox in the blood. They can model how much total dox a patient was exposed to, systemically, with each dose. This is then summed (along with any previous dox exposure from other treatments) and the total allowed cumulative exposure to dox is same as for straight dox.

The fact that the UPS patient has received well over a year of treatment (along with other patients) suggests that the amount of dox in the blood is much lower with ava6k than for straight dox. If we think back to the plot from the December presentation with time on the x-axis and the y-axis was a logarithmic scale of amount of dox in the blood, straight dox and ava6k were quite similar, except for the massive peak at early times for straight dox. It is this peak that seems most responsible for the side effects of dox.

@Bella - yes, if the patients are responding to the Q2W treatment and have not reached the lifetime equivalent of dox (and if the side effect profile is positive enough), then they will continue receiving the treatment.

@Bella - clinical trial results do not need to be shared until the end of the trial, either completion of stoppage. It is common for companies to share the data as they go, like Avacta, but it is not necessary. So holding onto any results from the 3 or 2 weekly study is not an issue.

Deals need to be announced, but only when finalised, and there are a thousand ways to delay that for some time, i.e., a signature required, etc. This is why there is a flurry of deals just before or during major international conferences, too make as big a splash as possible.

Holding back negative news can be dangerous, due to possible lawsuits, but holding back positive news is par for the course. And neutral news (i.e., new CFO, CMO, etc) can be released or held on to to suite whatever purpose they have.