Member Info for KonarA

exactly.

Scib1 and CIs are just two separate drugs given at the same time for synergistic effects.

Reformulating a drug using avidimab could reset the patents.. as is the case with iScib1.

Although as I understand it, the DNA platform itself would continue to go off patent based on the original date, its just the specific formulation which is extended.

it's given "in combination with" not "combined with". That would not extend the patent life of the CI.

genuine question... have I missed something? where has the suggestion of combining Scib1 to a checkpoint inhibitor come from?

NGL, I'm ******* bored of waiting now.

Some good points in reply all, and the covidity trial is a minllion miles from dead and may turn out to be spectacularly successful. As I say, I do hope I am wrong.

I guess my scepticism of covidity is probably just my natural pessimism trying to counterbalance my optimism of moditope.

On the point of "Covidity validating avidimab".. it could certainly be taken to mean that covidity itself had been successful. Arguably it could also mean that avidimab can be successfully incorporated into a product that is then trialled in humans. But if avidimab does ultimately prove to offer guaranteed benefits to MABs, then it could be an absolute cash cow.

My instinct is telling me that the covidity trial has been fairly unsuccessful, possibly damaged by the outbreak of Omicron, and they will release the data from covidity alongside a good news update from Moditope. My logic for this is the time taken to recruit to the trial, the time taken to report the trial, the number of patients involved and the number of ammendments to the criteria along the way.

In this scenario, I would be frustrated not by the lack of success from the covidity trial (it was always a side hustle) but by tarnishing of any Moditope success.

I really do hope I am wrong.

@RW - Don't forget that the following were "Project Blueprint" in 2018:

Lindy Durrant
Ugur Sahin - CEO of Biontech
Ira Mellman - Vice President Genentech
Christian Ottensmeier - Lead Clinician on Moditope

as well as a bunch of other distinguished academics. I'm sure Redmile saw the opportunity to jump in when CRUK didn't.

I agree with BermudaShorts - this announcement relates specifically to MRNA vaccines, which are not within Scancell's product set. It's disappointing that they have once again gone back to BionTech whilst overlooking the work being done in the UK. That said, I 100% agree with Roses too, if Modi 1 can shrink tumours in a good percentage of treatment resistant and hard to treat cancers, then the government will likely have the science pulled out from under their nose when it goes to the US.

on the flip side...

it working in just 1 of the 3 patients would still be significant news given that these patients have exhausted other treatment options.

Just trying to keep the bar set at a reasonable level! I would love Moditope to be a miracle cure, but it doesn't have to be to be successful.

@bobtpt we know patients were being treated at the Clatterbridge, long before the trials website was updated to say recruiting. It's possible that Velindre is recruiting, but you are right to point it out.

I was reading the story of comedian Rhod Gilbert who in the last year was diagnosed with Stage 4 Head and Neck Cancer and is being treated at the Velindre Cancer Centre. He is a patron of the centre and was on a fund raising expedition as his symptoms worsened and resulted in the diagnosis. I wonder if he has been considered for the Modi trial running at the Velindre, and if so, I hope the treatment is successful for him.

I don't think Scancell have ever hit a self declared time line. Definitely an area they can improve on if they want to improve shareholder confidence.

I wasn't at the AGM, so I don't know specifically what commitments were made there to releasing an RNS.

But taking this statement (from the last Modi 1 update rns)...

"The Company expects further safety and immunogenicity data to be available in H2 2022 and early efficacy data in 2023."

... I would question if that is a commitment to news. The trial itself is obviously run by the clinicians and not Scancell themselves. It could be argued that the above comment could relate to data being made available to Scancell from the clinicians, rather than a commitment to release news to the market.

If something was said at the AGM though, then that could trump this observation.

I haven't watched the video, and I wouldn't want to waste a moment of my time here on earth listening to that gaslighting a-hole. Unless of course he was making accusations outside of parliamentary privilege, which I'm guessing he hasn't.

I'd also direct you to this twitter response:

https://twitter.com/TheBHF/status/1603071599778873345?t=Aaz7ioxtBia2O8fhYobKEQ&s=19

Hope the drive was OK. Let's just hope patients are able to take advantage of the expanded use. I suspect they will need more evidence of clinical benefit before this can be utilised, but as we know, that evidence could build up very fast given the target and mode of action.

under the expanded access section of this trial register:

https://beta.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05329532?patient=Scancell&locStr=&distance=0

it says "Scancell Ltd has indicated that access to an investigational treatment associated with this study is available outside the clinical trial."

Could this mean that IF modi 1 demonstrates clinical benefit in areas of unmet need then people can apply to take Modi 1 outside of the trial? Given that there are no checkpoint inhibitors approved in some of the indications, this could be a big number. Thoughts?

I'm on a flight into Heathrow this morning :(

I think ethically its the ONLY way they could do those monotherapy trials, if the pre-clinical evidence suggests the combination will be better. Even in those people that have failed to respond to CI alone

There is a strong argument for wanting to use Modi without CI if a combination is no better or limited benefit. CIs are expensive and toxic. I can absolutely see why Scancell would love to build up the trial data to compare monotherapy with combination.

My question is more around the ethics of trialling a drug without the CI when it is standard of care, and under what circumstances would someone be rejected for CI but accepted for a IND immunotherapy.

In her AGM speech Lindy stressed this part of the trial is "LOVED" by clinicians. I'm just trying to understand why?

My guess is that it gives a treatment option to people not responding to CI whilst still waiting for the CI combination trials to get underway.

Unfortunately I don't believe she does. She explains the rationale for the combination study, but she doesn't explain why the monotherapy arms were expanded to four.