The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Doc83 - no. If only one patient was recruited on the last day of the trial being filled then the applicable hospital only needs to contact that one patient on Monday or Tuesday. As and when a patient reaches their day 90 they will be contacted for their last assessment. So by now 610 plus patients would have already had their last day 90 assessment.
dgdg1 - if for example there is bias due to the phase II results then this bias will have been a constant throughout the trial, with the emphasis on 'throughout'. Even with reference to placebo which you mentioned - if there is such a bias then it would be a constant throughout the trial.
In this case you have the possibility that a new bias could be introduced at some point during the trial which could result in part of your data being skewed and not comparable with earlier trial data.
It's impossible to conduct a trial without absolute no bias, but you should aim to limit the bias as much as possible and ensure that no new bias is introduced at some point during the trial.
dgdg1 - I'm sure you're familiar with the term 'unconscious bias' and that is what has been referred to here. Let's say for argument sake the results are released and they're amazing. It's printed all over the papers around the world, massive hype. Now for someone who took part in the trial and who still needs to complete the 90 day period will have become aware of this unless he/she lives in a cave. (But, then again he/she prob wouldn't have gone to hospital in the first place.) This will kick off an unconscious, possibly even consciously, thought process where the person would think they were on treatment and would WANT to feel better, because they want to ASSOCIATE themselves with the treatment being successful. It's all about ASSOCIATION in my view. The result would be that when this person is interviewed for the purposes of the trial his/her answers may be affected due to this association with good results. To prevent this from occurring it's speculated that top line results are held back until after the 90 day period.
I recommend reading the book 'Influence - The psychology of persuasion'. Fascinating read. I think influence by association falls under the chapter 'Social proof', but can't say for sure.
https://seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4484071-takeda-pharmaceutical-company-limited-tak-ceo-christophe-weber-on-q3-2022-results-earnings
Under the Christophe Weber section.
To start with it was a ridiculous idea.
Rajeev Venkayya is not joining Synairgen. He’s joining a venture backed company.
Thx for this and the other article Brand. Just so much evidence out there - like the world only woke up to the true value of IFN now.
Wrong thread
Thx for this and the other article Brand. Just so much evidence out there - like the world only woke up to the true value of IFN now.
The first annual return for Synairgen Research (Ireland) Ltd was filed yesterday. Not much in it really - the following is worth sharing.
1) The company is wholly owned by Synairgen Plc with RM as director.
2) [Interesting fact] Section 137 applies which means that a bond of EUR25k had to be placed as none of the directors are EEA residents. I’ll provide the link below which explains section 137.
https://www.companyformations.ie/company-secretarial/irish-non-resident-director-bond/
The reports are available to download and purchase from the following site.
https://core.cro.ie/e-commerce/company/search/4689075
I'm aware that the comparator is not effective against omicron which is why the EUA has been withdrawn. That does not mean it cannot still be used as a comparator, although I agree it does not make sense. It's just that SAB's press release gave the impression that they proceeded irrespective.
When you said 'issue with the comparator' I thought there was some other issue which you were referring to. Anyway, thanks.
Interesting, although I don't see how there can be an issue with the comparator since SAB-185 and SNG001 are compared to the same comparator and SAB-185's recruitment is progressing as per their press release.
If there are any specifics then that'd be great.
gunto2020 - on what intel is it based? I found an interview from last year Dec suggesting otherwise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G803aMK1xy0
SAB Therapeutics issued a press release on 24 Jan 2022 with regard to ACTIV-2. The following can be deduced from this news release:
1) ACTIV-2 phase II results, based on the interim and final analyses, are shared with the Sponsor. The sponsor is allowed to publish the results which is what SAB have done. (I assume SNG are already in possession of these results.)
2) It seems that the monoclonal antibody ****tail of casirivimab plus imdevimab (REGEN-COV, Regeneron) is still used as the active comparator even though it's no longer authorised under an EUA.
3) Just over 700 (out of 1200) patients have been recruited to the SAB-185 leg of the phase III trial. This includes the comparator leg. It's not possible to tell how recruitment is progression for SNG001, but at least it's underway I'd say. SNG001 requires 800 patients - that's the treatment arm.
https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/sab-biotherapeutics-reports-positive-phase-2-virology-data-demonstrating-sab-185-met-criteria-for-advancement-to-phase-3-in-nih-activ-2-trial-for-treatment-of-covid-19/
The video itself is not new. Been up since the launch of the new website.
I'd say they need to be careful with their comms while phase III results have not yet been made public. It's good to do a tweet like this which is to raise awareness, however its impact only goes so far when you don't have a proven product yet. You don't want to reach the point where the audience start saying 'It's all good and well, but show me the goods.'. Once you reach this point your comms strategy of raising awareness starts to lose its effectiveness.
In part you should also consider it in the context of the results still outstanding irrespective of what RM said about early 2022. Phase II results were released on the 18th business day since unblinding of data. We're now on the 32nd day post unblinding if I'm not mistaken. The audience may become impatient, for understandable reasons, and that could have an impact on how they perceive your comms. So you have to be careful in how you execute your comms strategy to avoid such scenarios.
Don’t think it’s been mentioned before, but just found out that Synairgen Research Ltd has a branch in Belgium which was incorporated on 01 Dec 2020. It was probably setup due to Brexit.
https://opencorporates.com/companies/be/0759495746
UK based
1) Synairgen Plc
2) Synairgen Research Limited (owned by no. 1)
EU based
3) Synairgen Research (Ireland) Limited [Ireland] (probably owned or will be by no. 2)
4) Synairgen Research Limited [Belgium] (branch of no. 2)
US based
5) Synairgen Inc. [State of Delaware] (probably owned or will be by no. 2)
6) Synairgen Inc. [State of Massachusetts] (branch of no. 5)
Or just go visit this page with compliments of Synairgen. A whole lot of publications :-)
https://www.synairgen.com/ifn-beta-publication-list
There is NO leak. Brooke would have had to request authorisation prior to her spouse buying shares. To suggest there’s a leak is the same as accusing her of insider trading including the company!
If they operate the same as banks he would’ve had 24 hrs to execute the trade post receiving authorisation.
Stop these nonsense suggestions.
Saxondale - this patent is a combination of the ones filed on 20 & 21 Jul 2020 and 27 Apr 2021. Google show them as three separate patents
mikee_p - fantastic and thanks for sharing.
It's great to see the patent covers any setting (i.e. home & hospital) plus it covers all future emerging and other known coronaviruses with the capability to cause LRT (lower respiratory tract) illness. I was concerned that the patent may not cover other coronaviruses so at least that concern has been addressed.
Of course it's for an inhaled form of interferon beta so not just IFN beta 1a. Breathlessness is proposed to be used as a simple measure to indicate treatment.
I had a look at the questions yesterday and I can’t think of anything more or different they could’ve asked really. It’s simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ questions so in the context of a large trial across different jurisdictions you need a measure that’s robust and not open to interpretation or any bias as that would make data analysis and interpretation complex (or even impossible).
I’m confident we’re good on this. What it also achieves is to pre-empt and counter any knee jerk criticisms in a peer review.
Tommy - correct