Member Info for opti_mystic

Is Eggy over egging it?

I agree AVCT. From memory we didn't pursue STS in the same way we did SGC because of a Dox only PFS in another trial surprisingly far exceeded what was expected and it made both a very long trial more likely as well as a much harder to beat PFS. Sometimes these end points are only half the story and the cost of these trials for a small biotech like Avacta including the greater risk in such a trial means it just gets quietly moved away from our main focus. I think it is obvious AVA6000 would be a better solution for those patients because it can be given for a longer duration at a higher dose with less cardio-toxicity. A high quality partnership or TO will sort this issue out I believe. Another indication where our tech will improve lives and result in income.

Sandy you are a wonder.

I forgot to mention Avacta's tech would fix a lot of the issues related to Keytruda and Keynote.

Well yesterday was great. The science is the science; amazing, excellent, inspiring and bringing hope with more effective and kinder treatments. Of course the fact we're probably a only a few weeks away from the first deal with some iteration of 6k possibly just for SGC maybe for more than one thing won't move this market. It was a science event as had been mentioned but whilst it may technically have been a misnomer, that term is used widely as phrase for 'investors', that's us, to have a separate event to the poster presented to keep us informed. It was never going to be a reveal of a deal 99.9 times out of a hundred. However the great thing is our amazing CEO who has become quite adept at telling us things in the way she doesn't tell us things. They're continuing to have conversations, some long standing which means some not. That the pipeline reveal' backs into' a deal with our tech on another companies warhead. Why does that matter? Because the warheads for 6207 are going to be Exatecan plus MMAE or ATR or PARPi. No ATR has been approved as yet. Therefore the partner is likely to be a BP that has both PARPi approved and ATR in development for trials. This signals a big deal. Maybe not so soon but once we've prove 6103 works and we have a platform not the promise of one. So where does this all lead? Only four companies currently have approved PARPi these are a collaboration between Astra-Zeneca and Merck (Olaparib), Niraparib is owned by GSK, Talazoparib owned by Pfizer, and Rucaparib is owned by Zr pharma&.

Companies with ATR in development Astra-Zeneca, Merck and Bayer. So there is only one possible collaboration and that is another joint venture between AZN and Merck providing the benefit of sharing the enormous cost of buying Avacta and extending their respective patent cliffs and ensuring mutual benefit whilst finding an excellent home for their own ATRs and Olaparib.

Both AZN and Merck are developing separate MMAE. GSK are not currently developing an ATR nor an MMAE. Pfizer an MMAE but not an ATR. It seems there can only be two companies and with Merck's patent cliff a big chunk of turnover (Keytruda $30 billion p.a. expires 2028) it would seem imperative to fix it. Will it be one or both?

I think it was at the interims CC said words to the effect of a licencing deal our peptide on another company's warhead 'in the not too distant future'. I am not sure what her version of not too distant means exactly but it is getting towards 4 months ago that she said that and if it takes very much longer it probably would have been better to have said nothing. Surely it cannot be far away now? If it isn't in the next 6 weeks I would not consider that 'not too distant' by any metric. So it must be relatively soon now, (unless something has changed) so what I would now consider not too distant future.

My view is that most PDCs are not that dissimilar to ADCs. The advantage Avacta has is that we're miles ahead in terms of what our tech does and it is both disruptive and game changing, it will lead to a paradigm shift in cancer treatment and outcomes for the next 20 years imo. CC talked about a couple of competitors in the PDC market. She and the team at Avacta believe they may have marginal improvements in the tumour/plasma ratio 10-1 vs 8-1 at best in ADCs, resulting in slightly better targeting and slightly less toxicity/side effects; but 100-1 and the method of cleavage, leveraging the bystander effect, and hardly any off target toxicity, our tech is in a different league. I am also of the opinion that because we are dumping unheard of quantities of chemo into the tumour it is having unexpected impact in terms of durability for reasons yet to be explained, possibly linked to the ability of the immune system to get in there or maybe something else in terms of damage to the ability of the tumour to re-grow. Let's be honest here ADCs are the best we have at present but they still result in horrible levels of side effects in both quantity and severity. We have increased the dose of Dox to 4 times the previous maximum and we still don't have the problems ADCs have. This speaks volumes in terms of how we can deliver more toxic drugs, higher doses of drug, for longer treatment periods and who knows maybe we will get the lifetime cumulative allowance removed too!

The technology can be attached to drugs soon to be out of patent, drugs that appear to be too toxic or are in effective in other ways because they didn't stay in tumour long enough.

The measurement of value should not be thought of simply in terms of the total addressable market for the drugs in the iceberg we know about (6000, 6103, 6207 and 7100) but also how Avacta's technology can unlock otherwise lost value in previously used but out of patent or discovered but discarded drugs. We will turbo charge and re-purpose those drugs in ways previously thought to be impossible. All very obviously imho.

@Sorcerer Excellent post. All for 64.5 pence a share. Absurd!

If I was guessing, I'd say that was deliberate by Lda

I agree Ice. There's a sweet spot for the type of deal we want and it probably isn't right now with all the data we have coming in the next few months. That said it is my view that this company, even at this stage is considerably under valued. For me the raise removes the question that the market seemed obsessed with: "Where's the money coming from?" Well now it knows. Hopefully it will more fairly price the company from here. We have money to multiple different inflection points of scientific data including P1b, Gen 2 Fap ExD initial data, TNBC data and a supposed licence deal to some other company's warhead, as well as 6207 reveal and possibly other new science contained within the 'iceberg'. RH said he didn't want BP anywhere near us until next year, I assume when we had the above listed data.

@FinePrint, I think it was a licence deal that wouldn't have much upfront, licenced to be attached to another company's warhead. The partnership deal as/when/if it happens would have a chunky upfront payment ordinarily.

@cj RH is doing us all a good turn by doing what he said he would do. Sort out the CLN. Thereby improve the share price by getting rid of the constant drag of new shares issued every quarter. Even now the price is more than double what it was so dilution is half what it might have been. Raise to fund only what is necessary when it's necessary to strengthen negotiating position with BP and allow space and time for the science to shine and attract BP. The fact the RNS says high net worth individuals and institutional investors tells me he's done a phenomenal job and no leaks either. The fact it was over subscribed sends a message too. If we need to raise more we can. What's not to like? The fact that some very wealthy individuals might just have got a little bit richer than they were is something you have to let go. We're all going to benefit from this and it won't take long.

Typically the science doesn't move the share price. Not too much of this stuff is actually new. 100-1 ratio beating PFS in SGC (albeit by more but still not reached) Great safety profile especially no 3-4 AEs in cardio toxicity etc etc. It's almost all stuff we did know before. Great the PFS is still not reached and they're forecasting 51 weeks but are as at 15th September at 42 weeks, all this we did know before and if we'd reached PFS I would have expected an RNS so I strongly suspected we had not. A bit more detail on some aspects of the trial but nothing has significantly changed. AND the science doesn't move the share price absent confirmation of funds for next year. We announced the worlds first dual payload PDC and the price went down! I'm not expecting much until commercials arrive, then I'm expecting a big move.

Holy moly! PFS in SGC still not reached! Are we allowed to get excited now?

Well this is all a bit anti-climatic. Any news on the data from the P1a? Have we hit PFS in SGC? Does anyone know anything?

Alde if that's the case, why not do what I and many others have done, green box him? That's what it is for.

@matml74 ooh that would be perfect.

I agree Cindercone, the next weeks weeks is going to determine whether the sp flies or crashes. I think fly, we have a new bod, RH knows what he's doing and is very experienced and although we've heard it before from the previous bods I think there are new sheriffs in town and this time they won't let us down. I expect them to deliver what they said they would, a licence deal soon and some sort of other deal maybe a partnership to take us forward. Brain said the board are not worried and they know what's going on behind the scenes.

The disconnect here will re-rate once the finance for next year is sorted out. We know it is going to be sorted because Brain told us the board is not concerned about it. We also know the CLN renegotiation is linked to having at least £13 million in by the middle of January 2026. All the sing posts are there to indicate it's all in hand. But with the track record of the company, if in fairness not this board, the trust appears to be zero and a we'll believe it when we see it approach. My understanding is you cannot commence trials without all the financing in place to be able to complete them. Being as we have P1 trial for 6103 and P2 trial for 6k next year plus whatever else needs to be done regarding gen 3 there is going to be a need for quite a lot of capital. I believe they know where that's coming from. If you're big pharma with patent cliffs serious revenue challenges and with what Avacta have announced today plus the platform plus the progress on the first two drugs and ESMO update which presumably they already know what's going to be presented there, Avacta has to be a very seriously attractive partner.

I guess this is the first glimpse of what CC said was an iceberg of other medicines under the Avacta banner. Interesting change to the wording AvIPm. Change of strategic direction? What else have they got ? I can't wait to find out.