Member Info for OAMOT

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?

VR are you serious? Raising £50m plus at 6.5% in a tough market is bad business? With an option to repay in equity or cash? If you didn’t realise this was very likely to be in effect a rights issue you’re the only person who didn’t. But a fund raise on that scale, which gets 6000 to end of 1a, at a good price is bad business how exactly?

It will create some buying and selling as a company moves in and out. Not sure it’s enough to make a huge difference though.

MSCI world small cap has a market cap range for constituents from $13bn down to $13m. Median is $927m so I think secondary factors may be in play - possibly momentum? 12 month momentum is very positive as was very negative when avacta dropped out so could be back?.

I’m a long term holder who’s very long here and and only occasionally posts. The share price is not what I’d like (or expected!) but every update on AVA has been positive and exceeded expectations. That includes the financials which give a longer cash runway than expected. With MTD being harder to find than expected showing it’s even less toxic than hoped, US sites now onboard at leading oncology centres, a newly designed 1b clearly designed to accelerate the process and a longer cash runway to manage it all it does feel like a matter of time and in every aspect ahead of what I’d hoped for. I’d love it to be now, but as long as the RNS’s stay as positive as they have been since the trial started I will be holding!

Sorry maybe I’ve misunderstood. My understanding - 3996 stops toxicity by FAP targeting as with 6000. 2727 which was being discussed as being of internet to Takeda is the active drug and has as much effect as velcade. I hadn’t seen that 2727 was a stand alone non-toxic chemo drug? If that’s the case they’ve done more than I thought. A lot more. But then why the comment it isn’t head for head with velcade? Again I understood the reason for this was the lack of FAP in blood cancers so it had no real advantage in the cancer velcade treats?

MB that would be nice but is there value in it for Takeda? If it’s only as good as velcade why but it? Others can sell generic velcade so why would anyone buy / prescribe it at a higher patent med price if it’s only as good as generic versions of the already approved drug. The plan to keep everything in house for me can only mean one thing. A sale of the business. Maximise retained value to maximise price. There is no way avacta can take these drugs all the way to market IMO.

Cash burn is what matters. It’s the news for more cash that’s been the supposed negative hanging over this. Cash burn is a lot lower than operating losses. And cash burn is the figure that determines how long cash will last not P&L. Cash lasts into 2025 based on the numbers released today. Or to approximately the end of 1b.

I tried 1k 5k and 10k. All no quotes. Back now to buy at 130 - or about yesterdays close!!

No quotes to buy for me - been trying for past 5 minutes. Sell is above mid so prices quoted are artificially low.

Now the cash position can be seen to be good. A good 2 years cash burn covered (assuming no additional commercial success in that time) I wonder what the usual suspects turn to now. Based on past FUD cycles expect cost of sale and profit margin on a future drug launch to be a big worry!!

Sorry cash at end of 2021. Fat fingers!!

Adding up cash at end of 22 plus the fund raise gave the company around 87m. Spent c25 on LD. Looking at cash remaining cash burn was quite low c£20m? - looks like cash is there to the end of 2024 maybe longer if LD does well. Great news unless my maths is wrong?

Low volume day. Looking at the (not totally accurate) buys v sells on here sells outweigh buys by 50k shares and look at the drop. If only 50k more buys than sells gave the same rise!!

Good commentary as usual Rah. The fact is the market regularly under and over values shares. Or we’d only invest in trackers. Everyone on here must believe that or they’d not be investing on AIM.

Luke you’ve said discount it as that’s the standard for new drugs. But that’s the point I’ve made. They aren’t new drugs. That logic assumes you’ve loads of different drugs so before they reach P1 you ignore them as they’ll all different and have the same new drug success chances.

That’s not what preCISION is though is it? It’s a single delivery system which can apply to many drugs. In effect as one makes progress the chances of success for all is similarly improved.

Luke you spent a lot of time on this. I will admit I haven’t read it all as it’s so long but from what I could see there may be a major flaw. You talk of new drugs, their chances of approval and their royalty rates.

AVA isn’t a new drug. It’s a delivery system for a well established drug with known efficacy. That’s why valuation is hard but lots see it as having much greater chances and therefore current value than you appear to. With what’s been seen already - vastly reduced AE and strong delivery to the tumour the chances of success appear very good.

Also you discount all value that’s not in at least P1. As preCESION / AVA is a delivery system and 6000 is seen as proof of concept for that system why value everything else at zero. There are not in effect multiple new drugs in pipeline. There is a single delivery system that can apply to numerous drugs once proven. Which many feel is close.