They will only ever bring out the negative. Positive pieces which have involved much research will be their main targets for deletion. They will hijack the 'subject' barf out as much negativity as possible, get disruption going, then delete the subject theme overnight. It's a simple tactic that is working very well for them because people keep responding!
as predicted, the disruptors carried out their scurrilous work last night, again, then conspired to delete the theme, again. Are we going to ruin this board every night y responding? They thrive like parasites on the response. They are not interested in the answers! They are here to disrupt.
Please ignore the disruptors. This evening shift will finish up like last night and then they will just get it all deleted. They are here to disrupt the normal positivity of investors. You will never get anywhere with them and the discourse just stops good folk from bothering to come here. That is what they want. You won't get an answer to your question because their aim is to disrupt.
I wrote to Brent Fitzpatrick who said they were not informed about the trail details until the announcement specifically to make sure it was all completely secure. He did say that they were 'encouraged' by the data and are looking forward to the next update. So pretty neutral i suppose in comment but future is encouraging. No comment on the sp, which is understandable.
“Encouraging trial results”
“SGSC will immediately start to undertake commercial discussions with potential licensees and/or fundraise for further clinical trials to investigate AZD1656 in a larger study”
“Further analysis to determine the precise nature of the biological effects of AZD1656 that explain the observed clinical outcomes will also be conducted”
“The trial data has shown the following:
Efficacy: A strong trend towards reduced mortality in patients receiving AZD1656. This was noted in both mortality on treatment and all-cause mortality, which were lower in the AZD1656 group compared to the placebo group”. This to me means that people actually lost their lives in the placebo group that would have survived in the AZD1665 group. This is profound. Think about it. Those families. With the greatest respect these people deserve that this drug will be developed and save countless lives and that their loved ones were part of that process in a most important and fundamental way.
“The strong trend to improved mortality for patients on AZD1656 was observed….”
“The data from ARCADIA supports continued investigation of AZD1656 for the treatment of patients with COVID-19, with or without diabetes, in future clinical trials”. With or without diabetes indicates the universal application of this drug for everyone in any viral illness.
“AZD1656 was shown to be well-tolerated in this patient population with no serious adverse reactions”.
“The proportion of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) was numerically lower in the AZD1656 group compared with the placebo group”.
Professor John Martin said “The promising results from this trial indicate that AZD1656, a simple oral tablet, has the potential to become a new treatment for COVID-19 – independent of viral mutations”.
Disappointed as many of us are that the sp did not respond to this news as we anticipated, this drug has clearly shown that it can be of life saving benefit to people. I think we should be patient, as we have been, as this will have global benefits to health and may eventually save our life as a commonly prescribed drug. Oh, and we will also benefit financially too.
It is believed that cytokine storms were responsible for the disproportionate number of healthy young adult deaths during the 1918 influenza pandemic, which killed an estimated 50 million people worldwide. A healthy immune system may have been a liability rather than an asset!
Preliminary research results from Taiwan also indicated this as the probable reason for many deaths during the SARS epidemic in 2003. Human deaths from the bird flu H5N1 usually involve cytokine storms as well. Cytokine storm has also been implicated in hantavirus pulmonary syndrome.
During this COVID-19 pandemic, many deaths are attributed to cytokine storms. A cytokine storm can cause the severe symptoms of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which has a high mortality rate in COVID-19 patients. The higher mortality has been linked to the effects of ARDS aggravation and the tissue damage that can result in organ-failure and/or death. ARDS was shown to be the cause of mortality in 70% of COVID-19 deaths.
Newly emerging and re-emerging viral threats have continued to challenge medical and public health systems and incur economic costs to both individuals and countries. The influenza virus is a main cause of those threats and is responsible for millions of severe cases and 250 000–500 000 deaths each year. These infections in humans are accompanied by an aggressive pro-inflammatory response and insufficient control of an anti-inflammatory response, a combination of events called ‘cytokine storm'. AZD1656 has huge potential in this fight.
"A strong trend towards reduced mortality in patients receiving AZD1656. This was noted in both mortality on treatment and all-cause mortality, which were lower in the AZD1656 group compared to the placebo group".
I know practically everyone is excited here, I feel we should spare some time to think of those people who unfortunately passed in the placebo group. I know that that is the nature of research.
More than 30 million Americans alone have diabetes. When they contract covid, and the reason the percentage of deaths is so much higher, is largely through cytokine storm that kills them. Lower levels of SETDB2 increases inflammation which leads to cytokine storm. What controls SETDB2 through a chain is Interferon. Interferon is mainly secreted by T cells. AZD1656 has been shown to activate the migration of T regulatory cells to sites of inflammation in preclinical experiments, which is the main objective of this trial, thus reducing inflammation. 415 million people in the world have diabetes.
"The preliminary findings give indications of this; there is however additional laboratory analysis to do which further clarifies this, drilling down into great detail; this takes an additional few weeks".
Because this statement was dated today, presumably it is implying that further analysis will take a few weeks? However, the RNS states SGSC now intends to publish the results of the trial no later than 10 September 2021. so is this a Vela/SGS communication difference in understanding, or is it semantics ie 'results' could mean this is what we have so far but more to do, or, more conclusive? I don't know. It would all seem, however, to be heading in a positive direction as it clearly isn't the case that it just didn't work at all. GLA
The Oscillate report does 'not give an indication of benefit'.
When I first read it this morning i thought so as well and wrote that this was unequivocally good, however my post was removed and quite rightly. Read the statement very carefully...
"The preliminary findings relate primarily, to the safety and efficacy of AZD1656 in the patients receiving the drug in the trial, as compared to the patients receiving the placebo. The drug must be shown to be safe (“tolerated safely”) in patients or there can be no further development. Efficacy relates to the effectiveness of the drug in treating the symptoms of the patients, and the trial seeks to establish this by analysing a number of different effects to establish which patients with which particular symptoms, benefit. The preliminary findings give indications of this; there is however additional laboratory analysis to do which further clarifies this, drilling down into great detail; this takes an additional few weeks".
So it says "The preliminary findings give indications of this" however, more work needs to be done to drill down into the details. So as regards 'safety' the preliminary findings give 'indications', so data, but more detail has to be drilled into. In my opinion we cannot interpret 'indications' to mean 'it works', it is rather, a piece of information. The preliminary findings give an indication of efficacy and safety, meaning the pieces of information from the study, do mean something which needs further looking into. It doesn't mean that the indications are that AZD1656 works. It means the indications are that the trial has led to lots of pieces of information. Key points from the Oscillate plc piece are though that;-
‘very few new therapeutics in development for COVID-19’…..’ this has the potential to be highly attractive to big pharma and biotech buyers’ …’… will be effective for the general population in COVID -19 and in other respiratory diseases’.
AZD 1656 has already been proven to work in diabetic patients ie migration of T cells therefore lowering inflammation; it is proven to be safe; it does lower blood glucose etc so a great drug. This trial is to determine if it can work to reduce mortality and the requirement for mechanical ventilation as well as the length of stay in hospital...no indication yet to us that it does what it seems to say on the tin.
has anyone (probably not as they haven't put it here) looked at the mortality rates for patients with diabetes in the 15 UK hospitals (out of 30 worldwide) taking part in this research, compared with say the mortality rates in 15 hospitals not on the programme? I know its a long shot and probably something I should have done weeks ago! but have only just thought of it. It's the 11th hour too and would no longer change our positions...I'll calm down and go and mow the lawn instead. GLA
The trial is following the Ordinal scale for clinical improvement so from uninfected, ambulatory, hospitalized mild disease, hospitalized severe disease to death, with sub categories and scores for each so non invasive, no oxygen therapy gets a score of 3; oxygen by mask or nasal prongs gets a 4. Ventilation and additional organ support etc gets a 7 for example and death gets an 8.
So I presume they are totting up the scores for poor folk on the drug and those on the placebo. Results on Monday. Somehow though I cannot see them continuing to let people die if during the trial people on the drug were doing better…so that might scew the result but in a good way of course. I don’t know how its going to go…gla
The Journal of Diabetes Investigation (Asian Assoc for the study of diabetes) published research last year (2020) on an investigated into COVID-19 patients with diabetes, but no other comorbidities, who were admitted to Wuhan Union Hospital, Wuhan, China entitled ‘Does glycemic control rescue type 2 diabetes patients from COVID-19-related deaths?’
In the retrospective study patients were divided into 2 groups: the well-controlled blood glucose (BG) group, and the poorly-controlled BG group. They found that the necessity of medical interventions and the mortality risk of patients with COVID-19 was increased by poor glycemic control among type 2 diabetes patients. In contrast, well-controlled BG correlated with improved survival rates for COVID-19 patients with type 2 diabetes.
AZD1656 has been shown to activate the migration of T regulatory cells to sites of inflammation in preclinical experiments, which is the main objective of this trial, thus reducing inflammation.
AZD 1656 has a blood glucose lowering effect for four months, which meets a major part of the second objective ie long enough for a covid infection to be covered
AZD 1656 has been found to be safe in almost 1,000 patients with diabetes and healthy patients in a set period of months.
IMO although the research comes from a year ago it does indicate that poor control of BG leads to poorer outcomes for patients whereas better control clearly has better outcomes. AZD1656 would appear to be helpful in this regard. Simplistic I know but please do your own research. GLA for monday