Member Info for PhilBanks

Thanks for the link, Grizzly. I like this line in particular:

'To advance the RP program, ReNeuron had to suspend its promising stroke program. “We have to concentrate our resources where we think we’ll have the biggest return,” Hellebo explains, “and that will be on the retinal program.”'

This aligns to what he said in the HC Wainwright presentation in September.

"there's nothing wrong with the programme or the drug (CTX), but we have a huge opportunity on the retinitis pigmentosa side and we'd rather put our resources behind that."

These are bold and confident statements, hopefully this is reflected in the upcoming data.

I believe the words are 'learning curve', which is something that has been mentioned in a previous presentation. I'm still not sure exactly what is meant by that, but I think it implies that perhaps the same chart has been used for both eyes? i.e. the control (untreated eye) has shown an increase in letters 'read', but this is more likely letters remebered from when they've been read with the treated eye. Anyway, they've previous said that modifications have been made to test to eliminate this from occuring in future. If anyone else has thoughts on my interpretation of this please share.

Although, thinking about it, if they only have a couple of months data from a couple of patients, the November conference probably isn't going to be the time that they will present.

Takeaway point for me is that readouts will be targeted for major retinal conferences, the ones named were AAO, ARVO and ASRS. Just been on each of their websites and the dates are as follows: AAO = 13th to 15th Nov 2020; ARVO = 2nd to 6th May 2021; ASRS not announced, but previously been in July.

So hopefully we can expect an update stating they are presenting at the AAO conference in November 2020, then presumably an RNS announcing the data will be issued the day or morning before the conference.

Not sure how I missed this at the time, but please see link below for presentation at H. C. Wainwright 22nd Annual Global Investment Conference on 15th Sept. Hopefully the link works.

https://wsw.com/webcast/hcw7/rene/1600890

or via Rene website: http://www.reneuron.com/presentations-list/h-c-wainwright-22nd-annual-global-investment-conference-virtual/

Olav discusses perceived benefits of sub-retinal procedure towards the middle of the video, as well as touching on the Jcyte study in general.

Also makes a very interesting comment at the end regarding CTX trial (and reasoning for licencing the trial):

"there's nothing wrong with the programme or the drug, but we have a huge opportunity on the retinitis pigmentosa side and we'd rather put our resources behind that."

Oh well, no rns. I'm sure MH will still manage to find something to titillate us with in the presentation this evening.

I saw that 10k buy and wondered if it might be you, chester. With regards to the price action tomorrow, the current price has bounced off medium/long term support, consolidated and looked relatively solid, so I'm not completely sure the 'no RNS' scenario will necessarily result in anything particularly negative. Ultimately it's a scenario that we have managed to conjure up on this board because I spotted a scheduled event/presentation. How many RENE investors actually read this board, and how many readers would pay attention to our conjecture is another thing all together. That said, a game changing RNS would be nice.

Onceaday, I think your point about the cost of the procedure and relative simplicity is entirely valid. However, the intravitreal injection provides little benefit at a 3m dose, whereas a sub retinal procedure has yielded impressive results at a 1m dose. The forthcoming data with a 2m subretinal dose will be interesting, as will the potential for any further dose escalation in the future.

There will ultimately also be a balance between the longevity of the treatment (jcyte have stated that they expect repeated doses to be required as their product provides only trophic support), whereas if rene can demonstrate that a subretinal procedure is capable of cell integration in human subjects (as was observed in animal models), then we could find that this approach has a sustained improvement to vision and that any redosing is minimised.

I wouldn't rush to overstate the results presented by jcyte. Based on the data in it's most basic form, they found a mean letter improvement of +2.8 in the sham group, +2.96 in the 3 million cell group, and +7.4 in the 6 million cell group.

They showed good data for a small group recieving the highest dose of 6 million cells when they went looking for it:

'In a post hoc analysis of this target population (~50% of the per-protocol population), an early and significant improvement in vision was seen in the higher-dose group, with average gain of 16 letters at month 12 compared with 2 letters in the control group.'

In the control group and 3 million dose group , when they applied the same 'target group' criteria, the results were +1.85 letters and -0.15 letter respectively. Now why would 6 million cell dose be effective for the 'target group', but a 3 million dose result in a loss of letters? To me it doesn't sound very scientific, and I think for phase 3 they will be changing their primary endpoint, as they will likely know that what they've gone looking for in the data is unlikely to reliably repeated in a larger population.

For comparision, Rene has presented data out to th e quivalent 12 month period (and up to 18 months for a couple of patients), with a mean change of +12 letters presented at 12 months. I'm sure if Rene were to expand the study and the cherry pick their own 'target population' in post hoc analysis, then they would be able to present some incredible data. However, I would prefer to just see data which shows the whole cohort tested, and the mean average improvement across the board, without having to massage the data in a way that will probably cause you to have to change your primary endpoint in future trials. Making data fit the results you want to see isn't particularly scientific in my opinion.

I've booked myself on as well. Not added any more for perhaps a month or so, as I have concerns about getting dragged down by a wider slump in the markets. However, I do agree with your sentiment regarding the investor presentation, I think there will be something material (and good) announced regarding phase 2b on the morning that will then be expanded upon in the investor presentation.

You would like to think that it's strategically timed. They presumably by now have some knowledge of early responses from the first treated patients from phase 2b.

https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/events/event/shares-investor-evening--webinar-291020

Sparks therapeutics got taken over after successful phase 3 trial, and jycte got their big licencing deal after phase 2b trial. With phase 2a data we're are clearly going to be on the radar of various bigger pharmas, but we shouldn't expect a takeover or any huge licensing deals until we have more advance trials and substantial datasets. We're pretty much a year off where jycte were when they got their licencing deal. If we can match or exceed the data they produced, then the deals will see to themselves.

Yes, I agree with onceaday. If events follow the phase 2a study sequence, then we can expect an update on the first few patients within the next month, or perhaps even the next few weeks at a push.

Looks like you're not the only one getting back in, based on the price movement over the last few days. Not sure if it's just a result of the technicals looking strong at support, with a breakout underway; or whether there is perhaps some news leaking today, but the movement looks very interesting.

Thanks Mallet. Any indication regarding which ones the trials have now started?

Only discovered and first read about this company today. Seems almost too good to be true, what am I missing?

Without wanting to tempt fate, it does look like it's finally found some support. Technicals looking better now and buyers appear to be returning. Some news regarding further exosome collaborations could make for an interesting lead up to first read out of the expanded phase 2a trial.

Chester, it was Olav who posed the question in the end of year results about 'what makes these exosome developments different to ours?' He went on to answer ‘proof of concept data in an animal model’, which we are working ‘feverishly’ on both in house and in collaboration with major pharmas. He went on to describe it as having ‘several shots on goal in the next 6 months’ and if we hit one, then it goes a long way to 'validating the entire exosome platform'.

2nd Digital Exosome Therapeutics Development Summit.

Reneuron have Shuan Stapleton presenting. Others include representatives from Evox and Codiak amongst others:

https://exosomebased-tx.com/about/full-event-guide/