Member Info for jive_turkey

@cj - yep, you're right. It shows how many are going for approval at the moment, how fast many will be coming to the market.

And as always when someone posts about large trades or certain MMs "on the bid", it has little or no effect on the share price.

@cj - as of August 2023, 11 ADCs have been approved, 92 have failed clinical trials and 164 are currently in clinical trials.

To be clear, I absolutely expect there to be a bidding war for ava6k. It is a novel treatment that overcomes many of the issues associated the current best-in-class ADCs. My point was that it is largely irrelevant who manufactures dox at the moment. Whoever makes dox is not generating massive profits from it, because it is generic. And that is likely to remain the case in the future. So BP will not be much concerned about losing their dox market. As Avacta will continue to buy dox from the manufacturers, their market in fact is likely to expand.

What BP will be concerned with is the fact that ava6k is likely to outcompete ADCs and become a standard of care for many cancer types. I expect that ava6k (and eventually ava3996) will eventually be used in tandem with other therapies for most solid tumours (FAP rich ones anyway, which is the majority). This is where the bidding war comes into play.

Note that dox is a generic drug, so while there are small profits associated with making it, it is unlikely to result in a bidding war. Also, note that ava6k uses dox, so Avacta will need to buy the dox from somewhere in order to make ava6k. So in fact, it is likely that ava6k will increase the dox market, and possibly even the number of companies making it.

Likely not trades, just book balancing. As we've seen time and time again, post hours trades have little or no affect on the SP.

Whoops, sorry about the double post...technical problems...

@Bella - if ava3996 becomes a solid tumour agnostic treatment which is effective and with few side effects, the multiple myeloma market will be nothing compared to the rest. For that matter, Keytruda (focussed on breast cancer) with $20B of annual sales will be dwarfed. ava6k is amazing and will multiply the dox market by 5-10x in my opinion, but ava3996 is the metaphorical bees knees.

And yes, if ava6k gets breakthrough status and/or accelerated approval, that would be the firing gun for the race to obtain the platform (even possibly before this, if it looks likely) as that all but guarantees that the following drugs in the pipeline will receive the same.

@BV - there is FAP in multiple myeloma, it's in the bone marrow where the cancer cells originate. There was some discussion on this mid-last year. However, that market is dwarfed by the solid tumour FAP rich market.

@Bella - if ava3996 becomes a solid tumour agnostic treatment which is effective and with few side effects, the multiple myeloma market will be nothing compared to the rest. For that matter, Keytruda (focussed on breast cancer) with $20B of annual sales will be dwarfed. ava6k is amazing and will multiply the dox market by 5-10x in my opinion, but ava3996 is the metaphorical bees knees.

And yes, if ava6k gets breakthrough status and/or accelerated approval, that would be the firing gun for the race to obtain the platform (even possibly before this, if it looks likely) as that all but guarantees that the following drugs in the pipeline will receive the same.

Agreed BV!

And I hope so Bella!

Just idly looking into cytotoxins on google today, I had a little check of doxorubicn vs. velcade (Bortezomib). As a reminder, ava3996 is a velcade analogue, and so to 1st order, I expect ava3996 (or more accurately, the warhead on ava3996 which is ava2727d) to have very similar properties.

When comparing to cytotoxicity (IC50 values) of velcade and dox in the same cell lines (Hela cells), velcade was about ~4 times more cytotoxic.

So it is more deadly than dox, but quite similar. Especially when considering that MMAE's are 3-5 orders of magnitude more cytotoxic than dox.

No take away message here...just thought it was interesting. So it is the mechanism of action for ava3996 (proteasome inhibitor) that makes it a potentially tumour agnostic treatment, rather than ava6000 which preferentially goes after reproducing cells (i.e., by disrupting the DNA of the splitting cell).

Thanks everyone for the correction regarding the repayment price. 👍

In that sense C3 never finished, as one of the patients from the cohort is still getting ava6k. The end of a cohort doesn't mean that the patients stop the treatment, nor do the clinicians stop followup (i.e., safety data, tumour progression, etc).

@Bella - there has been a lot of work done over the past couple decades on the dosing schedule of dox, with multiple trials looking at both the dosing level and also the dosing schedule. One clear result is that dosing more often (i.e., every week or two) is much more efficacious than every 3 weeks. However, it is also more damaging to the body, so most patients can't take the more rapid dosing (specifically, the damage to the white blood cells). So for a less toxic form of dox, a more rapid dosing schedule (every week or two) was always the goal.

As for the repayment, I believe that the shares given for repayment are always at 118p, as part of the deal (regardless of the share price at the time).

I would be surprised if Avacta attended, this is mainly about targeting genes for treatment. So a different kind of ‘precision’.

"History generally repeats its self!"

Except when it doesn't. The above comment also grossly over-simplifies the bio-pharmaceutical market, where it often takes 10+ years to commercial a product. Avacta only obtained the rights to the Precision chemistry in 2017 or 2018, and hence it is actually pretty impressive how they have been able to bring it into the clinic on a relatively rapid timescale, with approval looking likely at the end of 2025 or early 2026 (although based on the results, I expect accelerated approval in mid to late 2024).

So this is just more of the same mindless FUD, the same rubbish like the ever recurrent "But a cash raise might come". Yes, it's biotech, sometimes delays and unexpected events happen and trials are expensive. But finding a company with this much potential in their IP, at this market cap, is unheard of. And for that we should thank the AIM market and the FUDsters like Robin62 as that mentality has kept the price at this level for people to buy in to. In any kind of real market Avacta would be worth 10x or more than the current market cap.

DTW - good question, I don’t know. Perhaps we could get a brief mention about the bi-weekly study safety profile during the presentation?

Phase 1a now has two arms. The first arm is the 3-week dosing schedule, cohorts 1 - 7. The second arm is the bi-weekly schedule. The latter definitely won't be included in the AACR presentation (assuming Avacta present there). I, for one, do expect the full results (so far) of the first arm will be presented there.

And how would the media report it, if some random person wrote to tell them "my wife's cousin is getting an experimental new cancer treatment and has been cured."?

The media would contact Avacta and probably the lead clinician at the hospital where the patient is being treated, and their responses would simply be: "We have no comment at this time, we will make a public comment at the end of (this phase of) the trial."

Story ends as no one would be able to confirm that this patient is receiving the drug and no one from the company would talk about it.

When the story is ready, Avacta will be contacting the media outlets (not the other way around) to set up press releases, relevant background info, specific case studies, etc. This could well be the case if Avacta present at the AACR in April...***if*** they have spectacular case studies to share. The December ones are great, but not great enough to grab the public's attention. But perhaps from C6 and/C7 they get a few more excellent ones, and of course if they can show that progression free survival goes from ~6 months to 12+ months, that would probably do the trick (i.e., "New cancer therapy with effectively no side effects more than doubles the lifespan of patients").

CJ - no, clinical data does not need to be released, even if it can affect the SP. But more importantly, if they would release the data, say in an RNS, that data is now public. This means that they would not be able to present it at most conferences, as these conferences are for presentation of 'new data'.

The basic outline of the data was given in December. Avacta were trying (I think successfully) to do two things: 1) show enough data to convince investors that Precision works and that ava6k is looking great and 2) have enough data left non-public in order to present it at conferences. It is at conferences, with significant media coverage, where the biggest splash can be made.

By April, C7 will have been running for 6 months while C6 will have been going for 9 months (yes the cutoff for abstracts is early Feb for the AACR - but that doesn't mean that data from after that date can't be used). This should be more than enough time to see efficacy in some patients in these cohorts, i.e., adding more case studies which I believe (depending of course on the patient population) will be pretty amazing given the high dose of dox equivalent that they are receiving. Note that in the Dec. presentation the case studies were all C5 or earlier.