We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
No worries. Only saw the article shortly before your post.
Interestingly the omicron variant found in Botswana was from four visiting diplomatic officials who entered the country on 07 Nov and left on 11 Nov. Their nationality has not been disclosed by the Botswana government. It was therefore imported into Botswana.
It would interesting to know how sensitive omicron is to exogenous IFN beta compared to delta.
The very first PCR test with the omicron signal was detected in SA on 04 Nov.
https://archive.md/ngw62
‘Junior Lancet scientist Alicia Vermeulen was credited with making the initial find on the afternoon of Nov. 4, when she noticed an anomaly in a single positive test and told her manager, according to News24, a South African news website. Over the next week, the same anomaly was picked up several times, and Allison Glass, head of molecular pathology at Lancet and a member of the government’s Ministerial Advisory Council on Covid-19, was informed, the website said.
Together with the National Institute for Communicable Diseases, Lancet was able to determine by Nov. 22 that there was a new variant, initially known as B.1.1.529, News24 reported. The S-gene couldn’t be detected because it had mutated, it said.’
Matml74 - following on from your comment. I guess it’s too early to say as we can’t yet definitively say omicron will outdo delta. But, should that be the case then it would have significant implications for ACTIV-2 phase III. If Regeneron’s mAbs are ineffective it would not make sense using it as an active comparator. And, if SAB’s mAbs are also ineffective, which is possible, then why still trial them in phase III. That leaves SNG all be itself.
BarryBrownPees - yes it’s 30% on turnover.
Saint7 - yes it’s wow, but to be safe I’d say let’s not get too excited (yet) although it’s worth being aware of this unexplained anomaly i.e. ‘mismatch’ between doubling of royalty % while price target was not adjusted.
Re point #2 where I mentioned £16 - £20. Actually it should be around £20 and maybe slightly higher than that. I used 100k sales and not 125k sales. Irrespective the estimates look incredibly promising.
They wouldn’t use a royalty rate of 30% without getting some insight from the company right?
CityTTrader - thank you for sharing the Numis note.
I've noticed the following from the updated financials:
1) Royalty rate has doubled from 15% to 30%.
2) Numis' lower price target remained at 990p despite the doubling of the royalty rate. Not sure if they're trying to remain super conservative or whether there is another reason for not revising it. However, if you do a back of the envelope calculation for Synairgen using the 30% royalty and taking into account expenses the lower price target should theoretically be between £16 - £20, give or take.
3) They seem to be working on an assumption of roughly 125k treatments per month for 2022. Assuming the 2022 figures are representative of 12 months' sales and £2k per treatment.
4) The financials assume no direct sales by Synairgen, therefore all sales via a third party. Should Synairgen do direct sales it will or should result in higher profits
AJ316 - I find Dr Eric Ding an annoying little chap. He’s more interested in creating drama - an attention seeking exercise by him. The WHO text you posted is good. It’s a measured and transparent review of the current facts on omicron. It clearly states that there’s no evidence yet that omicron results in a higher % of hospitalisations whereas Dr Ding advances a different narrative to create panic.
Fruits - yeah I saw that. Thx though. I made a general statement, but then too lazy to type more.
So this variant is called 'Omicron' and its symbol is 'Oo' ... how fitting. Seems like it was chosen to represent the reaction of the scientists when they found it.
Dr Bagai said based on data from the US, unless this 'US' is something else or have heard wrong.
I'm not sure I buy this. SA has just started analysing the virus so how's it possible that the US already have an opinion on it's infectiousness? Important to remember that even if it's more infectious it does not mean it's more transmissible.
And, the UK is about to start a 10k person trial to test molnupiravir.
HPHQ - here’s an article based on an interview with Dr Colin Axon, Brunel University's senior lecturer in engineering and who also advised the government on minimising the risk of cross-infection in supermarkets. It focuses on how particles spread while putting into perspective the effectiveness of surgical and cloth masks based on the size of the gaps vs the size of a covid particle. It’s really interesting. Worth a read.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/17/cloth-face-masks-comfort-blankets-do-little-curb-covid-spread/
Or if not subscribed to The Telegraph.
https://archive.md/ab88n
Let’s rather look at what the SG018’s approved protocol states with regard to the interim analysis. The quote below is sufficient so no need for me to add anything.
Quote: An unblinded interim analysis is planned to assess futility on the first 300 randomised patients and will be conducted once all of these patients have completed the Day 35 visit or have withdrawn from the study. The primary analyses for the two primary endpoints will be conducted for the interim analysis and provided to an IDMC.
In addition, summaries and appropriate analyses of death, intubation or death and severe disease or death will be supplied to the IDMC and should be considered in their recommendation. Unquote.
In addition a safety analysis was performed before 100 patients have completed their study treatment. The DSMC would also meet as and when necessary should any safety issues arise.
s120896 - Synairgen did not sign up for a rolling review with the EMA or anyone else. Clearly stated in the protocol. Plus rolling reviews take place while the trial is ongoing, ours is not.
Matml74 knows what he’s talking about so the process will be as described in his post.
Prion25 - Kate’s appointment was strictly vaccine related. You’re wrong to criticise her for something she had nothing to do with.
If you want to criticise anyone you should level it at Prof Van Tam who lead the Therapeutics Taskforce.
Brand - based on the information available from the TR1s there was no shared ownership of the shares. Let me explain it from a legal and accounting point of view.
Legal
Polygon entered into CFDs with three other parties giving Polygon the right to future variable returns associated with the underlying shares, while not actually owning the underlying shares. The three other parties to the transactions retained full ownership.
The TR1s also stated that voting rights associated with the shares were owned by Polygon which means an additional legal agreement(s) were entered into whereby voting rights were transferred to Polygon. Again, ownership of the underlying shares remained with the three other parties.
The latter was a giveaway of some sorts in that Polygon would ultimately acquire the shares.
This type of deal is called a ‘structured trade’ comprising of various separate legal agreements.
Accounting
When assessing a trade, especially structured trades, from an accounting perspective you assess them based on substance i.e. true intent. This is what is referred to as ‘substance over form’.
In Polygon’s balance sheet these shares would’ve been classified as if they actually owned the shares i.e. classified exactly the same as those shares which were bought outright. The reasons being:
- They had the right to future variable returns through the CFD; and
- They owned the voting rights i.e. had ‘control’ over the future economic variable returns. [This characteristic would’ve been decisive in classifying the shares as owned by Polygon.]
I’d say there were two possible reasons for making use of CFDs
1) Polygon had a liquidity squeeze for a limited period of time and didn’t have the funds available to buy the shares outright OR
2) Polygon used the three other parties to assist them in building a stake more quickly.
gggg21’s post about the probability of phase III success reminded me of this document published by the UK BIA in Sep 2020. One of the board members shared this with us last year.
Specific to Respiratory medicines the probability of an experimental medicine reaching the market is 81% in phase III, the highest of all.
Refer to page 29
https://www.bioindustry.org/uploads/assets/2552f01e-5b03-47ca-9794ba0d428a6cf5/Opportunity-on-your-doorstep-A-guide-to-investing-in-the-UK-biotech-sector.pdf
Kevinl1977 & Ndn71: please refer to Matml74’s response to this question at 09.37. That’s an example of an intelligently formed and well constructed response.
The reason why Sprinter was not stopped on efficacy grounds is simple. And, it's the exact same reason why an EUA never could or would've been issued based on SG016 hospital results.
It's a numbers game. Halting the trial after 300 patients, of which half would've been on SNG001, would not be a significant enough number of patients to provide statistical significance. There are a lot of unanswered questions and/or concerns about IFN out there and the only way to address them is to have solid data. 610 for a phase III are not a lot, yet that would've been the minimum agreed with the Regulators. So surely 300 would not cut the mustard.
There's no other reason for not halting the trial.