Member Info for Muck165

Reading between the lines - “The market just doesn’t understand what we’ve got”

JV - do you think changes to the trial protocol are likely linked to an application for breakthrough therapy, as per 16 in this useful FDA Q&A?

https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/food-and-drug-administration-safety-and-innovation-act-fdasia/frequently-asked-questions-breakthrough-therapies

HD2U - it’s clear we’re strengthening our CDMO business in line with strategy. Great.

Honestly, it’s the AVCT bit I don’t get. They had assay developers for in house test development, using their Affimers.

They bought launch, which distributes but does NOT develop, saying it was part of an overall strategy to create an Integrated global IVD business differentiated by Affimers.

But then they get rid of a suite of assay development staff, with at least some of the higher grade ones coming to ABDX. So who are they expecting to develop the assays for their IVD’s? Will they just use a CDMO?

It’s just odd.

So looks like we picked up a few from Avacta

“ We will continue to strengthen our dedicated lateral flow CDMO team to meet the growing demand for our services”

Would be nice if Yates could elaborate on that

As if on cue, Yates posted about all the new hires a little while ago.

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7024424813058269184/

Recognising these are likely nothing more than career moves, driven by a shedding of staff by AVCT following their acquisition of Launch, I noted another long term AVCT joined us in Jan

https://www.linkedin.com/in/amanda-nicholl-50514828/

CY blogging about where the LFT market might be heading.

https://www.abingdonhealth.com/lateral-flow-market-2-0-innovation-and-growth-post-covid19/#self-test-innovation

Interesting comment her makes about Vatic

“Another area we are seeing a great deal of focus is the increased use of saliva as the testing matrix. Finger prick blood or nasal-pharyngeal tests can be uncomfortable for the user and saliva can offer an easier-to-use method. “Abingdon Health worked, and continues to work, closely with Oxford-based Vatic Health during the pandemic to develop a saliva-based COVID-19 rapid antigen test. The use of saliva is extending now into other large market opportunities, for example the fertility market“.

I’ve commented before about possible links between ABDX and Salistick, the creator of the first Saliva based pregnancy test, although I admit borne out of nothing more than mutual historic likes and comments on LinkedIn.

https://wired.me/science/a-startup-has-created-the-worlds-first-saliva-based-pregnancy-test/

It is interesting that only central units like Ops, QARA and HR got to be involved in the LTIP, alongside the Directors. Anyone have any thoughts on why? I suppose it could be that;

- the Board already knew that others were leaving so didn't include them.
- something is in the offing, like a takeover by another business, where that other business already has a strong sales and distribution channel and is really only looking for manufacturing and QARA. Would perhaps also explain the recent departures.

Whatever, I always keep those Director buys in mind and try to remind myself that whatever issues I have with the Board, they have successfully listed and then sold a testing business in the past - COZART.

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/business/news/1686291.company-sale-makes-brothers-multi-millionaires/

A comprehensive and interesting read published last week in Nature about where the future lies for LFT tech, and the contributions it could make to world health.

Notable is the list of diverse and heavy hitting authors that put their name to it
(See the end of the piece for details).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44222-022-00007-3

SP - I agree. There are a number of employees on AVCT LinkedIn showing open to work, and this guy posted this

“ I am currently looking for a new role. Unfortunately, Avacta made a number of the science team at risk late last year and I have decided to take voluntary redundancy. ”

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mackenzie-sinclair-008996120/recent-activity/

I didn’t post it here because I agree, it is clutching at straws somewhat!

Regardless, AVCT have signposted a desire for a total diagnostic solution. We’ve bought an independent distributor so manufacturing seems to be the last piece. ABDX are a potential, especially at current SP.

I think consideration has to be given to current FDA thinking on this, which is all about optimising dosage rather than maximising it. FDA has been progressing this thinking for a while and earlier this month put out this draft guidance.

It would, I think, be foolish for Avct to ignore it…

https://www.fda.gov/media/164555/download

The other thing I ask myself is this - what was there in the RNS that might explain the delay in its release?

I suppose, conceivably, they had to wait for the biopsy results, or even wait for an SMDC decision on where to go next. But that seems a bit of a stretch. Alternatively other, more commercial, ducks may have needed to get lined up.

Indeed.

Just managed to listen to it and, as has already been highlighted, the most telling bit for me was his use of one simple word when asked about the opening up of commercial opportunities - "indeed".

he has never been tight lipped when asked about the potential for deals before.

Personally, I do Ben.

Looks to me like we are well on the way to proving a mechanism of action that others have failed to do for years. The pipeline potential is massive.

I noticed that this long term Avacta employee joined ABDX in Jan. Could be something given Avacta's clearly signposted M&A strategy in diagnostics, although probably nothing more than a simple career move.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/laura-barrass-hemmens-088184196/

It’s been said repeatedly - if it works then AVA6000 will have a market, but the real value would come from the pipeline thereafter, alongside TMAC potential.

Lovely find and v interesting. All reads well to me although admittedly over my head. I suspect, however, that this was put together to support the last funding round which was successful, so people with far greater understanding than me put their money in off the back of it.

I would have thought some data will be available to assess tumor shrinkage to give a preliminary signal on which subgroups/cancer types may be the most responsive in further efficacy studies.

RAH - tend to agree that this isn't all that important. The FDA positively encourage expanded access to IND's and I suspect its not unusual for a developer to offer expanded access as part of a trial. It does strike me, however, that no physician is going to recommend a patient make use of expanded access without having at least some level of understanding about how safe it is and whether its actually doing anything, nor would I expect Avacta to allow it if they had any concerns (at least on safety/tolerability). I also wonder about the extent, if any, that data coming from anyone using expanded access might be used as part of the overall trial results.

Whatever, we don't actually know if any patient has made use of this potential so this is perhaps all a bit moot!