Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
He has other NED roles including chair elsewhere already. Not sure it impacts his Avacta role - I don’t expect it will be a huge time commitment to any of the NED roles. Just shows he is a good guy and in demand as a NED.
I think each participant completes the trial in 24 days. 2 doses 3 weeks apart with 3 days observations after dose 2. So current cohort could be about to end. Even if there is 2 weeks after first patient before anyone else joins the end could be close now> especially is recruitment is fast now with doctors wanting patients on the trial as it is having an impact
I’ve read some nonsense on here in the past 3 years but this latest argument that confirmed effectiveness is probably just placebo really must get the award for worst FUD ever.
Every participant is in a horrible position having exhausted all care options. Several are still on the trial enjoying progression free survival. A great thing for them and also a key efficacy indicator for a cancer treatment.
The idea this is just a coincidence is pretty bizarre.
Let’s look at the options:
Option 1 the power of the mind has stopped a late stage cancer growing (coincidentally at the same time an established treatment is being administered).
Option 2 The established cancer treatment being administered is treating the cancer.
On balance I am thinking option 2 is most likely?
This may well have been said already as so many posts on here today. But patients from earlier cohorts (plural) still receiving AVA6000. So at I least someone from C3 which ended last September - if not an even earlier cohort. That means people are being dosed for around a year at more than the max dose of dox which can only normally be taken for 15 weeks. This is incredible. The reaction today is muted to say the least!!
The cash balance is a great detail to shut the near term fund raise talk down. £27m as at 31/5. Down 14m from 31/12, but £7.4m spent on the acquisition. So cash burn for first 5 months was c£1m per month?
No rush to raise at all for a long time based o[n this cash burn.
Do you think AGMs normally work differently? Would BP take any question from the floor? If they did they’d be swamped by climate activists buying 1 share to disrupt. The company has been poor in the past in its comms, but recently has been really trying to be as open and communicative as possible I think.
We have 2 weeks waiting for AGM and are also waiting for DE. Waiting periods like this make investors nervous and do also seem to coincide with a lot of ‘what happened to the LFT’ ‘there will be a find raise soon’ ‘it’s all been delayed’ posters suddenly arriving. Coincidence?
Lots of the usual nonsense on here today. Personal favourite is we are not mushrooms. Are we being kept in the dark by a company that has issued 4 RNS this month (its the 15th) and has a whole day for investors to hear it’s plans as well. Not bad volume of comms for June!! I get some frustration - back in 2020 lots of us thought wed get quite rich quite quick. Looks more like very rich a bit more slowly. Still if it’s 18 months for me thats still a 5 year investment which in equity terms is quick ish. Bought more today. This price is pretty odd if you ask me, but hey a few more can’t be a bad thing.
Wyn, give it up! There is a huge fundamental difference between LD and ABDX. aging just checked ABDX has an MCAp of 10m and a year high of nearly double that. So BO feels like a 15-20m price tag. They all ways lose money and in 2022 there turnover fell 70%+. So buying it would burn half current capital day 1 and accelerate the cash burn rate meaning Avacta suddenly needs cash /fund raise overnight. It is literally the stupidest suggestion I ever read.
Wyn, are you serious? With cash availability being the main ‘concern’ around avacta you have been talking abut for months you are suggesting they may be planning spend money (with a premium on current ABDX market cap at least half the cash they have) on a business whose main operation is manufacturing to shut the manufacturing down? I have a better idea for dealing with a business you don't want - not buying it at all!!!! Your other suggestion is they may need it in 5 years - but your other constant bleat is that what the market needs is more info about how they make money soon. The presentation is so clear. They go out of their way to identify the one element they don’t want - manufacturing. No idea what the objective of this nonsense is, but it’s the most confused illogical idea I’ve read in a long time.
Wyn, you are just like Neut. Moan about lack of clarity, then when you have it (they don't want a manufacturer) want to totally ignore it. Abingdon can call themselves whatever they want, but they are a manufacturer. They have a great big factory where they make stuff. I find a lot of what you post strange, but this one is bizarre even by the bar you’ve set.
Neut’s posting history is bizarre. Today he has suggested avacta wont be fully funded if they bought ABDX, but also that it’s very clear on the slides there is no intent to buy manufacturing capacity. That they are ‘fully funded - that’s what the company said’ but has spent all day saying its not clear if they are funded are not. Ive seen suggestions that posters have various names on here, but this is so contrary it is like two people share a log in.
Neut, They have said specifically manufacturing is not in their plans. I am also pretty sure they have also said any acquisitions would be small gap fills, but I haven’t the time to source this. They have said they’ve cash into the medium term which wouldn’t be true if they also planned to spend it all would it? The idea they plan to spend all the cash in the middle of a major trial and then be desperate for funding is the weakest FUD attempt I’ve read in a while. No surprise who the person to agree with you is. Lots of things aren’t said by people as they are obvious. They wont spend all the money they have when they need it for this incredibly important value event they’ve been working towards for years. It doesn’t need saying as it is just so obvious.
Thanks Rah. This is what the trial protocol says:
Primary Outcome Measures :
Number of participants with dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) [ Time Frame: Cycle 1, 21 days ]
Percentage of patients with Dose-Limiting toxicities (DLTs) of AVA6000 during the DLT period [ Time Frame: Cycle 1, 21 days ]
Maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) or Recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) [ Time Frame: Cycle 1, 21 days ]
Percentage of patients with Adverse Events (AEs) at RP2D AVA6000 dose level in tumour-specific expansion arms. [ Time Frame: Cycle 1, 21 days ]
Secondary Outcome Measures :
Maximum drug concentration (Cmax) of AVA6000 & Doxorubicin [ Time Frame: Cycle 1 and Cycle 2, 0-72 hours post dose (Dose Escalation) ]
Cmax (maximum plasma concentration) of AVA6000 and Doxorubicin after administration after Cycle 1 and 2 for 72 hours post-dose.
Area under the concentration versus time curve (AUC) of AVA6000 & Doxorubicin [ Time Frame: Cycle 1 and Cycle 2, 0-72 hours post dose (Dose Escalation) ]
AUC (Area under the concentration versus time curve) of AVA6000 and Doxorubicin after administration after Cycle 1 and 2 for 72 hours post-dose.
Elimination half-life (t1/2) of AVA6000 & Doxorubicin [ Time Frame: Cycle 1 and Cycle 2, 0-72 hours post dose (Dose Escalation) ]
t1/2 (Elimination half-life) of AVA6000 and Doxorubicin after administration after Cycle 1 and 2 for 72 hours post-dose.
Renal clearance (CLr) of AVA6000 & Doxorubicin [ Time Frame: Cycle 1 and Cycle 2, 0-72 hours post dose (Dose Escalation) ]
CLr (Renal clearance) of AVA6000 and Doxorubicin after administration after Cycle 1 and 2 for 72 hours post-dose.
My (non-medial) reading is all the primary outcomes require 1 dose, plus 21 days? Secondary outcomes require 2 doses plus 72 hours? This reads to me like 24 days could be all that is needed from first dose to all data being obtained. This timeline would make completing 1a a quick turnaround? Assuming the success to date means potential patients are easy to find. Am i being optimistic and mis-reading this?
Hi Rah, I am always confused by the timelines with this. If it is 2 doses 3 weeks apart and then 2 weeks for final toxicity observations isn’t it 5 weeks minimum? Dose 1 is day zero. Dose 2 is day 21. Final obs is day 35? Not a medical expert so I don’t understand the design fully, but that sounds right in terms of the maths? If it is then every allowing for the US patient being dosed the day it was announced they will complete 2 doses plus obs by the end of the month ish.
Rah, if it’s only 2 doses plus 2 weeks to observe DLT’s isn’t that 5 weeks per patient? Does 1 day 0, dose 2 day 21, final DLT evaluation day 35? I’m never quite sure on timings here. Do we need to build in patient 2 and beyond beginning on day 21/22 to take it to 8 weeks?