Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Also plausible perhaps that they were being coy about the 2nd gen test and that in fact this is the real govt test and are much further along in its development than they let on (months of close collab?) due to nda. Avacta's own brand test to be sold in parallel privately (the RNS) with full margins until such a point the govt (whom are stakeholders themselves given the investments) allow the other one to be sold privately idk. Reason for nda is so govt can unveil this unified test to all the haters. Molloy mentioned putting competitive rivalry to the wayside, Avacta/Mologic sharing margins of a 5 pound test sounds about right.
Despite adding GAD and abingdon bbi ramp up (and presumably odx), still only several millions per month? Unless govt have assumed most of it thereby pushing the private sector capacity down?
My only gripe with avacta only test being govt test is that they are best in class "s protein" (as opposed to just best in class) and if lft-experts mologic whose Gates foundation project aimed for 1pg/ml can't fulfill 95% requirement who else really can, this super 2nd gen test. As good as affimers are, who knows how much sensitivity they can reclaim by going S rather than N (which more abundant and naturally greater affinity with reagents - affimers counter both with greater density on strip and its own greater affinity vs antibodies). 50 pg/ml analytical not definitive yet. Bare in mind req for your 95% would require anterior "less viral material" swab. Also this constant tag line of capturing the infectious. I'm not an expert but surely when you start reaching the higher sensitivites you start capturing the 'just before' and 'just after' infectious people to whatever degree so not strictly only the infectious are then captured?
From "very good" to "outstanding" suggests ongoing redevelopment and improvement to meet requirements hence delays (and odx 'developing' avacta test) perhaps. Brexit little grey.
Point about sensitivity. While you don't necessarily absolutely need a 90+ test, given the doubt and criticism and the fact test and trace is as much about behaviour (doing test assuming its reliable and therefore trusting to isolating), I can understand requirement for 95%.
Some speculations
Dare I say a better thread than Unprecedented's ;)
Do you think they'll make an LFT to test for rampers like you Unprecedented?
Consumers are more forgiving than government though. You get government approval and endorsement, corporates (esp the big ones) will bend over. Perfectionism is exactly why Apple and Jobs were so successful, granted they didn't have a time limit. Besides the tweaking more government driven than AS driven now. And this is their first proper adventure into diagnostics, of course they'll be teething issues. Next crop of diagnostic tests will be developed more rapidly I'm sure, probably with the proven partners they've found along the way.
500 was for the antibodies as a comparison. 50 pg/ml was for the Optimers via Elisa. Avacta's 40pg/ml was for 100% saliva matrix, there's was involving 10% though doesn't explicitly say whether 50pg/ml was for 10% vs buffer but says minimal difference between the two. Can't definitively compare with Avacta's as far as I know but an expert might be able to roughly glean which is better. Again, they quote LOD, Avacta's quotes LOQ; LOQ always going to be higher as limit at which you detect AND can quantify. Does stink of slight massaging of the results the way they present theirs though, was the antibody comparison the absolute worst version of an antibody binding reagent plus their discrete x-axis vs Avacta's continuous?
Avacta's similar ELISA results came from London School of Tropical Medicine. Does fit with narrative Mologic (whom are using in cahoots with Aptamer group) being couple months behind Avacta if they are publishing these results now.
Report also stinks of desperation to separate their "Optimers" from your average aptamer (plus the recent trademark name). They select for the highest quality versions of their aptamers produced which as far as I know others would do (Avacta sure does). Can't see how else (if at all) their aptamers differ from others but I could be wrong.
Looking at the timing here, there is very little evidence AS knew in advance of anything significant and therefore sold due to that. They were in the midst of tech transfer when he sold let's not forget.
A CEO is allowed to change his tune as and when needed for the good of the long term value of the company. Most Covid directors have been doing the same thing.
Take your revered Elon Musk, one last placing before the tanking
Some amendments
1-5: placing was opportunistic based on price, any other CEO needing secured funding would do and have been doing in Covid space
6:AS sells shares at 1.80
7:Weeks later price crashes due to unexpected high vaccine effectiveness
8:Days after vaccine John Bell says that govt are pushing for anterior swabs at expense of saliva
9:Weeks later AS switches to anterior swab, price crashes
What knowledge is that? That vaccines would be 90% effective? That's what has depressed the sp. Delays haven't helped but for a company that has not specialised in diagnostics, particularly ones that need to meet government standards and public scrutiny, why would it be plain sailing? You could add in a point about the public image of affimers, aptamers haven't broken into the antibody market partly due to antibodies being tried and trusted. Rushing out an inferior test does not aid their other activities nevermind their new aspirations for a dedicated diagnostics division. Point is there's no evidence to suggest he absolutely knew delays would occur and sold in anticipation of sp reaction to delays. And he certainly didn't sell in anticipation of vaccine news. His director dealings are a non-event exacerbated now by the recent lack of news flow and other completely irrelevant director dealings.
If the sp moves north of his selling price, would it still be considered perfect timing? It's only been a couple of months.
Institutions provide the real support to share prices. They are invariably longer term less volatile holders of stock. Of course you would align yourselves with them rather than the fickle retailers if that's how you view the situation. A CEO's responsibility is to the long term value of the company not the short term.
Novacyt CEO needs to convince shareholders there is a future beyond covid. Avacta CEO does not. If Novacyt continue to acquire to diversify beyond covid they need sp strength as alternative funding to do that, they can't just rely on cash in the bank. Avacta aren't looking to expand inorganically as plenty organic growth opportunity as is.
You're right about it being a test for a good AIM investor, but you've failed that test.
It has been said before about the nucleocapsid protein being more abundant (on this board and in academia). Compared to Avactas target the spike protein one would imagine a lower sensitivity. However, given the size of the affimer molecule, a larger density can fit in the lft compared to antibodies = better sensitivity. The spike protein, with a high affinity molecule like affimers, would likely give way to awesome specificity. Specificity is king here, sensitivity is queen partly due to simple act of taking the lft again later to drastically improve the sensitivity (high viral load, infectiousness). And because false positives are more undesired than false negatives because whole thing about reducing need to isolate.
The abc antibody test targets the Ig antibody protein, elicitied by the Astrazeneca vaccine sure. But so do a plethora of other lfts. From what ive read in academia, targetting Ig is not preferred given that it is the spike protein on the antibody that does the neutralising, Ig just easier to detect given relative abundance. But I suppose it doesn't matter. Point is, abc test not exclusively preferable for Astrazeneca vaccine hence my apprehension about abc test being best in class, only thing going for it is it is uk rtc and therefore close to govt.
These early morning posts never get read but **** it.
I dont understand why anyone would hold ODX when Abingdon around the corner. 2x profit share than ODX abc test, 3 antigen tests and a (more than) healthy capital raise to scale...With the scrutiny around the abc test and the immense competition for antibody lfts (which if govt procured will likely be £5 not £15 let's be honest which is only defining feature of the test - closeness to govt) the ceiling is low compared to other Covid stocks. Merchantbanker is populating this board more than ever since vaccine day, reeks of doubt in his chosen stock.
That 99.7% specificity isnt 100%, the 0.3% very much counts especially at low prevalence. People shouldn't be quoting the instruction manual se/sp because its bogus (self or "independent" validation = exaggeration). If avactas maintains high sensitivity with home use (70-80 with 99% infectious capture would be phenomenal). Coupled with the manufacturing benefits of affimers (some of which shared by aptamers), can very well be go to test. And fyi we don't want the test to be 99% sensitive like PCR otherwise we may pick up dead viruses = false positives.
The switch to anterior I believe is more about government. In fact in review I think its evidence of govt contract. In that notorious hamburger interview, Bell said trying to get these tests to be used at home through use of anterior swabs. If the govt is likely to have multiple lft suppliers which I think they might (not the best for avacta but likely come out top = extended contract), better a standardised process not to mention standardised suppliers of swab.
Affimers are a new version of peptide aptamers designed to be better than aptamers, a promising antibody alternative with some weaknesses that have therefore been unable to break into mainstream. Shelf life and undesired affinity to human proteins (the latter, in my mind, = reduced specificity). Plus some more gobbledy gook I am not expert enough to understand. If Mologic are outsourcing reagents and manufacturing, what margins are left at £5 a pop?
Also, I'm pretty sure Mologic will be anterior swab also (if they look to be involved in the next tender which not unlikely).
If they can't detect Timster as a ramper, there's no hope
ELISA isn't a lateral flow test for mass testing...
I'll bump this too
...Speculation though, just like 90% of the stuff that appears on these boards.
Antibodies bind to proteins too. If Bell has found a problem with another saliva test binding to food at the very least, it is worth second-guessing affimers like stopstopgo says. Also perhaps the viscosity of the saliva changes beyond the limits of the original lateral flow test design.
You're missing the point, regardless of whether you don't eat before and after, bell has obviously come to the conclusion that saliva doesn't work. Home testing is what we're talking about, you can't expect the average joe to follow instructions every time particularly ones that require you not to eat before and particularly; this might be his reasoning. The medicines that ask you to do this and that on an empty stomach are not equivalent when you're testing for an infectious disease (where false positives/negatives are important). Avacta now need to convince Bell and his colleagues that inform govt purchasing that theirs retains sensitivity/specificity despite user error. Does anyone seriously think here Bell has not considered the ban on eating before taking the test especially if it is already instructed in the manual of the test he was validating?
Swabs at home suffer sampling problems themselves. This would be saliva's equivalent as far as Bell is concerned. With anterior nose swabs though, sampling technique isn't a problem (though they're still looking to test this which should see a reduction in their sensitivity/specificity anyway).
All of the 6 were nasal. The govt has bought 100s of millions of SWAB tests perhaps explicitly because Bell and colleagues have proven against them.
If you think Bell is crazy or tongue loose which I understand, that makes the situation worse not better after those comments. Too crazy to see the benefit of Avacta?
The throat swabs require you to also use them nasally and its the back of the throat out of the way of the tongue.
Raw sewage testing wouldn't be like lateral flow testing at all. You think they just have to dip Avacta's stick into raw sewage to test for covid?
You send off the DNA test right? Ancestry don't tell you through a stick that you are 0.005% native American do they?
Their results so far have been in a laboratory setting a controlled environment. We're talking about home testing here. Saliva has been found to be better than swabs in a controlled environment. If you can find one that compares the two in similar average mass testing conditions, please do. The ELISA link is very useful as Alistair directly refers to saliva consisting of other materials, but again not mass testing conditions. If I tried to speak poorly of Alistair's presentation there, he does not present the upper and low limit of quantification for 50% saliva, just on the hard to read graph. It is encouraging though but not definitive.
I like the idea that Avacta probably hasn't gone through Bell's validation process and are doing that separately due to the delay in validating BAMS and the shortage of live samples at the time. And that Bell was talking about SD Biosensor's saliva test which we know was in the first wave of government validated tests plus their history of failing validations elsewhere. And that yes affimer's extraordinary specificity/sensitivity allows it to succeed despite food conta
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08y1k2j
Listen from 17:30, broadcasted on 10/11/2020
This wasn’t linked before as far as I’m aware but a poster did highlight the BBC interview with Bell Tuesday night.
We ARE NOT one of the 6 because Bell plainly says they are all swabs and god**** 100s of millions of swab tests have already been procured; at 100mil/month, safe to say what 3 months supply. But this maybe due to a number of reasons not simply that we did not progress through validation and were “dropped”. I was in fact leaning towards the idea that it might be us before listening to the above because of the difference between ‘technical validation’ (phase 2) in gov docs and ‘clinical evaluation’ (phase 3/4) in the recent tweet. Innova’s phase 2 validation did not require a batch of 10,000 tests. Phase 3 (and the now introduced phase 4) however do.
More worryingly though, and the main reason for this post, he mentions that he has had problems with saliva tests as their efficacy varies depending on whether the guy “had a cheese or ham burger”. Regardless of whether he is directly referring to Avacta or not, this is worrying for all saliva tests. I know other companies have also reverted to swab because saliva is “too hard” and I have personally rationalised it, probably like many genuine investors as “but Avacta will…”.
For the more knowledgeable, if you can explain WITH EVIDENCE (link or otherwise) why Avacta’s saliva test avoids these problems with food etc., I would be very grateful. Otherwise, I fear, particularly if Bell and his colleagues have the final say on govt contracts and their predilection for avoiding saliva tests now, we will not succeed in the UK.
And then he mentions that the current crop of swab tests are to be pushed into home-use (which we know anyway now) using anterior nasal swabs (these are swabs that do not go far into the nasopharynx so no discomfort). While easier to use (less variability based on sampling technique) they are also less sensitive as the virus material would be present less so here.
There is a chance that Avacta’s delay has been due to converting the rapid antigen test into a swab test. Their tweet, if you really wanted to look between the lines, refers to ‘a’ rapid antigen test, not ‘the’ rapid antigen test. Perhaps they are referring to a different definition to that previously described to investors. This is PURE SPECULATION though. If Avacta did pursue this route, we have one less competitive advantage.
I firmly believe in Avacta’s tech and pipeline otherwise.
If anyone can explain the above (with evidence ideally), please do
Merchantbanker,
The specificity of those tests would have been assessed as POC devices. It's important to realise that the swab tests would perform worse as an at-home test due to poor sample taking. Avacta's LFT will be superior as an at-home test because saliva sampling does not rely on proper technique, that is the USP. Saliva is more complex than swab in fitting into an LFT, those are our foremost, few and far between competitors. When you want to compare specificities, you'd want to compare Avacta's strictly with saliva LFTs not swab due to the above.
Also, worth note, which is often overlooked is the thermal stability. Innova's test has a very acute range as per their instruction manual. Now this is ok as a POC test because there will be facilities to regulate the temperature. However, in the at-home setting, you cannot rely on the average joe to maintain the required temperatures just because well they're the average joe with other things to do - as we enter Winter, you can be sure the heaters will be on. This would lead to further reduction in the accuracy of our POC competitors. The other side of this is the public confidence in these tests. The government are fully aware there is reluctance to use them (though at the likely £5 maybe less so) so any chance of tests being voided via temperature or poor sampling in the at-home setting (that further destroys confidence) are highly unattractive to govt.
Avacta's USP is its robustness to the at-home setting that other tests, to my knowledge, do not have.
In the interview with Bell where he mentions the 6 have high specificities around the 99.8% range, he also mentioned this was due to the quality of reagents they were using. If affimers are superior to antibodies, which by all accounts, they are, that's confirmation Avacta's test will compete on specificity. If you wanted to speculate, you could say well why mention the quality of the reagents when everyone seems to use antibodies (reagents) - perhaps he was referring to affimers, the only (well Aptamers) other reagent there is. More likely, there are nuances that I am unfamiliar with in antibody production that make ones better/worse, but it's worth a think.
On top of this, Avacta's is the superior test to manufacture en masse because 1. there are shortages in swab 2. there are shortages in antibodies and 3. affimers are produced faster.
You come from ODX yes? So ODX are the manufacturers only, of an LFT that Mologic want to sell for pennies at cost? What margins are you looking at there then?
Do people realise that they are not just doing the optimisation but the clinical (that's CLINICAL) evaluation?
Also remember that Cytiva is a leader in LFT manufacture. Sona Nanotech partners with Cytiva just like Avacta with a NOT clinically validated 96% sensitivity. A lot of the sensitivity improvements during optimisation is from the LFT device itself, not necessarily reagents that Avacta supplies (moreso the specificity). Different immunochromatographical material, absorption materials (Sona speak highly of Cytiva's absorption material) etc. change the sensitivity. The research paper tweeted by Avacta uses latex particles (the worst option in an LFT) just as reference. I would assume that academics conducting research do not care for the best materials in an LFT test, only that what their result is statistically significant. Sona however, use their own gold nanorods which are at the better end for an LFT; this is their market edge...they still use antibody reagents (Avacta's is easily produced so scale is easier unlike antibodies, perfect for a mass testing device). Theirs is nasopharangeal which, due to poor sample collection (improper swabbing) and the lower viral load in the nose in the early days of infection, is inferior to saliva for sensitivity.
The point is Cytiva's strip with Sona led to 96% sensitivity. The same expertise is focused on Avacta's. Avacta's should be comparable. Not to mention the public aim of 90%+ from Alistair the day before releasing the "positive initial results" RNS.
This idea that they have a s**t test because optimisation is taking longer than expected is wrong. Clinical evaluation takes a good deal of time itself due to the lack of real-world patient samples (which CONDOR have kindly given Avacta), Sona haven't clinical evaluation in over a month since spouting this 96% sensitivity.
Distributors can be setup at the same time as not knowing the test results, they're compressing the timeline by overlapping steps.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/24/apple-makes-idfa-opt-in-on-app-by-app-basis-in-ios-14