Member Info for Muck165

Its been said that AVA6000 is the “pathfinder”, ie a way of proving the preCision mechanism of action. Now it has, the commercial opportunities are apparent. But one that might be of significant interest to BP, particularly given the substantial interest in ADC’s, is TMAC.

That really is next gen stuff….

Confirmed - no further trading today

https://liveservice.lseg.com/node/282

Should be able to get regular updates on what’s going on here

https://liveservice.lseg.com/node/282

So, in the interview he says it normally takes 6 months to sort the logistics docs etc, and they’ve actually been luck to get it so quickly. Surely he will have known this in April when he indicated the first shipment would go in May?

I’m afraid I just can’t trust anything this guy says.

Financials aside (which were good and further evidence the transition were undergoing), the most notable thing for me was the comment on the Loop Sepsis test. For Abingdon to do that for a test that hasn’t yet got regulatory approval (hopefully UKCA in this quarter according to Loops own timeline) suggests to me they have strong hopes for it.

And that is a test which really does serve a serious, substantial, and unmet need.

Who knows what the SP will do, but I tend to agree with you nursesteve. She evidently wasn’t too incentivised by the 914,000 share options she was granted under the new LTIP in December last yr, with an exercise price of 7p.

Great set of results, although in line with expectations.

Some things I noted…

Looks like we’re rebranding “Abingdon Simply Test” later this month.

Notable inclusion of Loops sepsis test in the commentary, perhaps highlighting some real potential for that product.

No comment on Salistick sales

Surely it would have been “oops, we did it again”

Like you Timster, this looks very good to my untrained eye. Indeed, it looks to me like AVA3996 is resulting in greater levels of tumour inhibition with none of the toxicity.

Some might say, yeah, but this is only in rats. But now we can also point to AVA6000 to strongly indicate it will work just the same in humans.

And lastly, would I be right in thinking the cancer targets here, particularly melanoma and colectoral, represent a much larger commercial opportunity than STS? It’s almost like AVA6000 goes to prove preCision as a delivery mechanism, and AVA3996 the first to show the blockbuster monies that could be made from it.

But like I say, I’m no scientist and will need to wait for the explainer!

Can’t say I’m any the wiser either BV.

But what’s clear is that AS has been keen to get it out and explained ASAP, so I’m assuming he’s somewhat happy with data.

Https://www.linkedin.com/in/janet-munro-79017918/recent-activity/all/

As always, there will no doubt be a focus on cash position and burn rate. Would be great to get some better idea of projects being worked on and their commercial potential, either in the results or the subsequent presentation.

Again, unusual. But might be simply explained, for example if that was the only slot they could get?

Likewise - and in reality I think Directors would have had an opportunity before the current closed period began. But like you I think the earlier release is interesting, as is the delay between the release and the presentation. In my (limited) experience, both normally happen the same day.

Thanks Apre. So releasing earlier will take the brakes off (should the Directors want to invest!)

Does seem out off character to do an Investor meet.

I’m pretty ignorant about closed periods for Director dealing, but am I right in thinking we’re in one now but that will end when results are published? Just thinking about the recent concert party announcement.

If I’d been asked at the start of the trial, I’d have said I’d be over the moon with an MTD at nearly 3x current standard of care with equivalent efficacy.

And here we are with dosage beyond that, no MTD in sight, and looking to up dosing frequency. I wonder what I’d have thought at the start of the trial if I’d been told we’d arrive at where we are now.

Goes to support what (I think) AS has said about the dearth of proper analysis in the U.K. People ask why the sp isn’t higher, well that’s one reason.

Glad it was of interest!

Given the high correlation between ODD and expedited program approval, you’d have to think think that the 2 different departments within the FDA liaise closely. That’s why I think our upcoming 1st annual report to the Office of Orphan Drug Development May have some real significance.

Bears repeating that as far as I can see we tick the relevant BT requirements

-Serious condition - tick

-Preliminary clinical evidence indicates substantial improvement over available therapy on a clinically significant endpoint(s), such endpoints to include a significantly improved safety profile compared to available therapy (e.g., less dose-limiting toxicity for an oncology agent), with evidence of similar efficacy - Tick.

But then what do I know.

From August, but I’d not seen it

Interesting that nearly all drugs granted ODD between 2008 and 2016 qualified for one of the 4 FDA expedited clinical development programs (see Table 1)

Priority Review - 77%

Fast Track - 55%

Accelerated Approval - 27%

Breakthrough - 19%

Used any expedited program - 87%

https://lubrizolcdmo.com/blog/orphan-drug-product-development-incentives-and-outsourcing-considerations/