Member Info for KonarA

Charles Breese that used to be a director at Hygea that invested in Scancell?

If moditope was disappointing in trials, would you be out there describing it as the golden nugget?

actually ignore that last observation - the AGM was in November, so those cohort ticks would have been right as of then.

is it just my imagination, or have red ticks been added to that slide that were not there before??

https://www.scancell.co.uk/Data/Sites/1/media/docspres/agm-presentationnovember-2022_final.pdf

Slide 12

First patient dosed - 13th June.
First patient dosed in cohort 2 - 9 weeks later (16th August)
First patient dosed in expansion & CI combo cohort 3 - 11 weeks later (31st Oct)
11 weeks later - Monday 16th Jan

By my reckoning they should have completed the initial review of the CI combo cohort 3 and be ready to progress to full dosing cohort 4. RNS due literally any day on this.

Nay we can't be doing horse jokes

.. or maybe, following the AGM and last RNS, Scancell took a complaint from a trial patient being approached on twitter, and thought it was a result of information they had shared in the RNS. At which point they decided to be less forthcoming with trial data than they hoped they could share with responsible shareholders.

Just saying. It's possible.

@wild - "I must say this period of quiet is intriguing!? We know there is quite a bit of news due !?"

I agree. We know that news is due. We know they will have gathered the info for the news. They have said previously they plan to release the news. So why no news? Very intriguing.

Moditope, Immunobody and Avidimab each have the potential to cause significant disruption to the status quo. Particularly the CI market.

If (and it is still IF whilst we await results) the products deliver on their potential, then any one of them could force a bidding war between the CI manufacturers. If all three come up trumps..

@wild - hypothetically speaking let's say..

CI alone works in 30% of patients
CI with avidimab works in 45%
Moditope works in 50%
CI with Avidimab and Moditope works in 90%

I'd love to hold those hands at the negotiating table.

@wild 100% avidimab will increase the patent lifespan on the programmes.Not contesting that at all. Scib1 becomes iScib1 and gets a new patent. Scib1 patent would remain unchanged, as would the patent that covers immunobody as a whole. That is of course unless they have completely re-patented the platform with the inclusion of avidimab in every product. I dont have the time to read through and try to understand all the new patents, but I trust Scancell and their lawyers to get the maximum possible protection they can. Their patenting has been pretty comprehensive from day 1.

@dalester I believe avidimab only works with monoclonal antibodies (hence the mab in its name), so couldn't just pick "any" drug up, but any MaB would work in theory. I think the more likely scenario would be licensing to a man producer rather than someone picking up an out of patent Mab.

But on that topic, I wonder if Scancell have resisted any urge to outlicence avidimab to CI manufacturers until moditope has cleared its comparative studies?

only thing I would contest in that is the comment that avidimab will extend the lifetime of the immunobody platform. As discussed on here the other day, I believe that the patent for the immunobody platform as a whole will not change as a result of avidimab. Individual products that can have the avidimab enhancement can be granted fresh patents, but the platform as a whole would remain on the original patent - is how I understand it.

Of course, if Scancell were able to produce an avidimab version of any immunobody DNA vaccine then it should be more potent and effective than a non-avidimab version, but but there are plenty of companies out there that will happily mass produce generic versions of off patent medication and undercut the market.

One of these days I'm going to point out the reply button, to save you creating new threads all the time ??

nope, you are correct - the 2022 AGM slides still has high dose cohort 4. It was the formulation without Enolase that they omitted. They just just Modi 1 with both Vim's and Enolase in both of the CI escalation cohorts (3 and 4)

@Bermuda I'll have to go check, but if my memory serves me correct, they did away with the second cohort in the CI arm. Think they went straight to expansion. I'll let you know once I've looked it up.

@Ray - it has. 31st Oct:

" In addition, Cohort 3 of ModiFY is now open for recruitment in combination with a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI). Expansion into the monotherapy arms and the start of combination dosing follows review of the safety data from the Cohort 2 patients by the Safety Review Board."

There are a number of cohorts running at the moment.

Cohort 1 and 2 as far as we know, are continuing to receive the treatment as per the original dose escalation plan (the has been some debate about whether they should now be receiving full treatment dose)

There is the Monotherapy arms (Scancell refer to these as the expansion arms)- all 4 cancer target, each with their own cohort of patients receiving Modi 1 on its own without a Checkpoint Inhibitor. It is these cohorts that are recruiting well, with the comment that one is almost fully recruited

Then there is Cohort 3. This is a small group of people doing dose escalation in combination with a Checkpoint Inhibitor. Size wise this is the same as Cohort 2. Once this has been safely demonstrated, this will expanded into the separate indications like the monotherapy arms.

Finally, there will be a specific cohort of the Combination Expansion group, which will be neo-adjuvant. These patient will receive MODI 1, ahead of head and neck cancer surgery. The aim of this group is to be able to get the tumour after it has been surgically removed to carry out additional tests on the whole tumour, to see the effects of Modi-1.

I go back to my comment the other day that avidimab could be a cash cow. I'd take selling a licence to use avidimab for a 5% royalty on all CI sales.

yeah i probably should describe it as "issuing a new patent" rather than resetting it. The original patent just carries on.