Member Info for Num4

Savvy, the simplest way to look at it is that the official nature article and lead researcher have confirmed inhibiting tyk2 will help covid patients. Lead researcher told us this on twitter. Kenneth Baillie "That suggests that a drug that inhibits tyk2 might make people less likely to develop life-threatening covid."

Now surely you know we inhibit tyk2..
Problem though, we also inhibit IFNAR2, which signals via JAK1, John will confirm this when the Q&A are published from AGM. Because IFNAR2 has low expression we don't want to touch it, that's why it is critical to get the timing right, inhibit tyk2 to save their life and hope the immune system fights back, giving our drug too early could cause more harm than good.

We are better placed as we don't have the black box warnings of already approved drugs, also it's not a one horse race as each compound will perform differently due to the selectivity range, some are undisclosed so we don't know, but choice is a good thing and a slice of the market is big enough to satisfy our investment goals.

BMS might actually have the best compound for COVID but that's only based on existing research, things change fast and we will be in the treatment pool that's for sure.
It's also been confirmed that COVID treatment is expected to been needed for years to come, it's not going away next year.

Thoth, this was the precursor to the well documented peer reviewed nature article which got plenty coverage around the world.

https://endpts.com/top-biotech-analyst-projects-a-gloomy-outlook-for-pfizers-jak-portfolio/

A good write up on Pfizer's JAK problems, but for Sareum, a slice of a 19.4billion per year market by 2024 sounds rewarding, if your in.

Now then we have a new player in the tyk2 sphere.
https://neuron23.com/our-science/
https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/neuron23-uncloaks-113-5m-to-tackle-cns-disorders-through-genetic-mutations

All good signs for big money to spent on a tyk2 in PI.

The license was also announced on the same day as the half yearly results, what it doesn't clearly define is the date of the agreement. It may well have been post 26th March but I'd imagine not longer than 4weeks post, hence the importance on January by the board.

Sorry it should be MHRA not PHE, MHRA are the ones that will change the course of Sareums treatment delivery.
With a big enough pre-clinical package they may sway to rolling data, nothing suggests otherwise.

The way things are going and the risks involved in delays, rolling data for treatments will be applied. I can only hope Tim and John share this enthusiasm and take a look outside the box, for getting SDC1801 into COVID patients. John still wants to do the study, agree, but surely John, you should be pushing PHE to get this into COVID patients who volunteer for an experimental treatment.
Severe cases of likely death or experimental treatment, I know what I would choose.

So we sequence 45% of the world's covid genome and when we identify the variants the world closes its borders to US! The lack of scientific knowledge due to no genetic surveillance is stark, Nigeria could have a killer strain right now but we won't know until it makes its way to a country that does the sequencing.

Great watch on sky news ATM

"Future variants may escape vaccines". Chair of nerfvtag. You can be 100% sure the next big news for COVID will be an effective treatment.
Tyk2 evidence within the scientific community and I'm confident we will be within the list of molecules getting the fast track rolling data emergency use.

On Sky news now, live evidence session.

https://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/profile?s=SAR:LSE

I would trust this.

I would say that is incorrect information published by simply wall st algorithm for content and click bait purposes.

Interesting read of the last QandA
Q11: On the basis that you do file the CTA for 1801 in Q1 when is it realistic to expect to get approval and can you sketch out if as and when you get 1801 sign off how things could progress

Our understanding is that it is an approximate 3 month process between filing a CTA and gaining approval for clinical trials to commence. Actual commencement of studies is dependent upon further factors, such as local ethics committee approvals.
In line with our strategy and as we state in our FY results, we will continue to review the potential higher value of a later-stage licensing deal versus the requirement for any additional funding

So we need to file before year end to meet the new Q1 2021 start, also interesting that they used that question to again highlight the later stage deal options.

I think TYK2 is too big for Sareum, the sooner they announce a competitive bidding progress has started the better. Let's be honest, they've never done any trial management, Chk1 was partnered with the pro's at CRUK, surely they would have announced a CRO partnership by now who are organising the finer details of the trial.

Within 2 weeks from SDC1802 lead to final results on 13th October we went from human trials in 2020 starting to applying for CTA in Q1 2021.

As most of you will know Sareum stuck to the statement in various RNS's over the year that they could start trails in 2020, even the SDC1802 compound had that statement in September. To start the trial they need to have applied for the CTA, if they are stating in September that they can start in 2020 then the CTA should have been submitted. Obviously it hasn't, yet...
Reasons based on toxicity, but I wonder if we are missing something, we know Sareum have put together a huge preclinical package for these TYK2s, I wonder if a licensor requested a further lab study, which moved us out of the 2020 window. Tim leant his lesson back in 2016 with the deal statement, I wouldn't expect him to miss that trial deadline he set himself and I think we have let him off lightly without much explanation at the AGM.

Deal on the table but we want to see how it performs at "x" in a model of "x". Goalpost moved, shareholders in the dark.

Let there be light Tim! I'm looking forward to an alternate January Blues!

These should be published today or tomorrow, perhaps John's answers to the requirements for the 6month might be more vague, if we can do a rolling trial as FT suggests is the plan for unmet needs I'm sure John will be making the applications.

Agree Phil, volume is good and we are top riser of the day so far.

Get ready for the usual 1hour delayed reporting of some chunks.

Rolling review of drugs to treat unmet medical needs in FT. We are on the cusp of greatness.

A $5 billion deal now mostly shelved. Market is huge for a drug without the safety issues..
https://www-barrons-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.barrons.com/amp/articles/focus-shifts-to-europe-as-gilead-backs-away-from-arthritis-drug-partnership-51608147196?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.barrons.com%2Farticles%2Ffocus-shifts-to-europe-as-gilead-backs-away-from-arthritis-drug-partnership-51608147196