Member Info for richlist

Thanks Wigster.

Reminds me of a genuine conference paper I once saw.
The study was examining motion sickness.
The grant had covered purchase of a Porsche to carry out the trial.
Guy presenting the paper looked very pleased with himself.

Ah alpha dog, great post while I was typing.
I used the per protocol data. Not sure why we got different answers.
Was your the intention to treat group?

But nonetheless, does show that a properly powered trial with death/severe disease as primary endpoints really does need to be done by someone.

No this can't be done.
From what was reported data were 16 day and 35 day for P2 and P3 respectively,
Standard of care changed.
You need to specify a protocol for a drug trial then do that, you can't just drag figures out of post hoc analyses.

However, I did look at it anyway with a chi-squared test and p2/p3 combined data for severe disease/death would have given a significant effect at p=0.0355. This certainly does warrant another study, it is a headline grabbing effect and makes clear that SNG would save a lot of lives. However, it would not be a small trial. It would probably need at least 1000 patients and probably more to be suitably powered. Not something SNG have any chance of doing themselves at the moment. It could be via a large platform trial, but only if the protocol was right for SNG, not if it was just 'being on a trial' and meandering through another few years with another disappointing outcome. The other alternative is to sell on to a major who would be able to do a well planned, suitably powered repeat P3 probably fairly quickly.

Not much point in looking at it, but checked combined P2 and P3 severe disease and death data.
What I can see is different, 16 day and 35 day respectively.
Cant do their analysis, but enough for a chi-squared test.

For P2 + P3; per protocol data
placebo 261+43 = 304
SNG 256 + 43 = 299
severe disease or death, placebo 32+11 = 43
severe disease or death, SNG 20 + 6 = 26

Don't guarantee my calculations, but looks like this would have been significant at p= 0.0356.

We were so close, effect is there we just didn't show it in this trial.
Given the AZ and molnupiravir data fiascos that got through to EUA, pity we can't discuss these things with FDA.

Great post Jim, thank you.

Agree on all you say. I tried a chi-square on the severe disease and death figures.
If this had been a primary end point and they had stuck to the original 900 patients this would have given a significant result at p=0.0263.

We were very close, just didn't choose our strongest primary end points and the trial was slightly too small.

What this means is that SNG does work, just this trial didn't show what we needed. So going into a larger platform trial of hospitalised patients with the correct end points looks like a very good plan. Also this gives clear direction to a major on the P3 trial they would need to run to get a blockbuster drug. This may make us a clear takeover target in the not too distant future.

Thanks for the positive. This really is not over, plenty more to come from SNG.

Sakura,

Most posters here have avidly followed the Covid research findings over the past 18 months and these help inform their investment decisions.

Possibly you have researched interferon as a treatment in the past, but what you are missing is the overwhelming evidence that Covid is exceptionally good at bypassing our interferon immune response. Furthermore there is overwhelming evidence that people most susceptible to severe covid are those with genetic or antibody issues with their own interferon response.

If you are really informed in any way about interferon as a treatment I am sure you will be capable of researching the particular potential it has for Covid.

I am sure we are all grateful for your concern for our investments, but you may wish to better inform yourself before posting further on this board.

Great post (as always) Joey, thank you.

This 'moderately ill' person in the molnupiravar trial sounds quite unwell.

Normal adult respiratory rate is 12 to 20 per minute.
Raised to over 24 sounds like they are breathless.

Normal blood O2 level is over 95%, so SpO2 of 90-93% is in the hypoxic range.
This person would likely be breathless.

Would be so good if the was a treatment for people who are breathless with Covid infections.
Oh ...

With respect Doc, I happen to be a real doc.

If you read what I said, the reduction to 60% efficacy for AZ 2 doses is exactly what is reported from real world testing and is reduced because delta partially evades this vaccine.

Certainly not going to pick a fight with you when you are the guardian of the board and I have a busy day ahead.

With AZ double jab, my risk of symptomatic illness is as follows.

Original variant, R around 3. No vaccination/protection. 100%

Delta variant, (alpha 60% more transmissible than original, delta, 40% more transmissible than alpha).
Risk without vaccination now 224%.
AZ double jab giving me 60% protection on this 224%.
So my risk as a double jabee is now 89% of that for the original variant without vaccination.

Very grateful for it, but that puts me only about 11% ahead.

Risks for hospitalisation and death are far better, which is the bigger issue. Don't see any data available for long covid risk yet.

So I will carry on being careful however much Boris tries to paint a very rosy picture of vaccine efficacy.

Forgot to put in that original variant with R around 3 required 70% immunity for the herd immunity target. For delta this has now risen to about 84%.

Feeling cross that government propaganda is painting too rosy a picture of how safe we are after being double jabbed. I am able to make my own decisions, but I know a lot of people, some vulnerable who think if Boris says it is allowed that means it is safe to do! Think they need to sever that link!

The original variant had a natural R value of around 3.
For herd immunity in a population you need 1-(1/R) as a percentage of immune people for infections to fade out.

We have heard that alpha was 60% more transmissible than the original, and delta 40% more transmissible than alpha. This tallies with my hearing that delta has a natural R value of around 7. This means that 1-(1/R) requires around 84% immunity in the population for infections to fade.

Astra Zeneca appears to give 60% protection against symptomatic infection of the delta variant. So even if everyone, including all children were vaccinated we would still be 24% short of the 84% needed for herd immunity and for delta to stop circulating. Some have had Pfizer which seems better and there is some immunity from previous infections, but still not enough the way rates are rising.

So, a lot more infections are inevitable. I suspect the government see these figures and think we might as well get on with it and get there sooner rather than later. When 'freedom day' arrives I will be letting the herd get on with it. I think it is completely irresponsible that government rhetoric is not making the situation clear to people.

I am very grateful for my vaccinations and very positive is the reduction in hospitalizations an deaths, but having let the delta variant spread here vaccinations are great but not a miracle. Please government, stop misleading people on their risks, including of long covid when expecting them to take responsibility for themselves, rather than trusting government planning to look after them!

Also, positive results from a phase 3 trial would then lead to an application for full approval, not just EUA.

From the full year results RNS (12th May) it said:

Synairgen's global Phase III "SPRINTER" clinical trial in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, SG018, is a randomised, placebo-controlled study being conducted in 17 countries enrolling a total of 610 COVID-19 patients who require supplemental oxygen (ie they are by definition more likely to have marked or severe breathlessness). After reporting the results for the primary and secondary endpoints of the study, enrolled patients will continue to be assessed for Long COVID symptoms.

So it looks like data for the follow up until 35 days will be unblinded and reported, but they will continue follow up at 60 and 90 days after unblinding. Hopefully this will still give us data readout in September or even end of August and we won't need to wait for the full 90 days follow up before unblinding.

Some of this has been said already, sorry if repeating..

The hospital arm of the P2 completed recruitment on 27h May 2020, so now is the one year follow up of those patients. RM has said that at the 28 day follow up point the SNG hospitalised patients were still doing markedly better than the placebo group. We have not seen their data beyong 28 day follow up. So, question is, did the placebo group catch up over a longer (long covid) time, or did the SNG mean that long term disability was prevented.

True, the 'not very ill' group from the home trial may not show much. Possible they recovered to an ultimately better level, but unlikely. There are the breathless patients in that group though, who have now been followed to beyond the 90 day readout.

So, in the interview last Friday RM said this data is now being analysed. Could be another important strand to the SNG story, and readout probably in the next few weeks.

Also starting analysis of long covid data, so readout not too far off.
This will be the first treatment to comment on benefits re: long covid as far as I know.

Jenny Harries was on the Andrew Marr show this morning.
She now seems to be in charge of future pandemic preparedness.

Asked about the new Yorkshire variant she said that it had identified mutations which might:
1) Alter transmissability
2) Alter ability to counter the immune response we would normally produce.

Sounds like she gets the interferon side of Covid. If she is in charge of stockpiling for future pandemics perhaps this is promising.

Interesting that the business model seems to be:

In discussion with governments regarding:
1) Use as a Covid treatment
2) Stockpiling
SNG can meet demands for these applications.

They would need a big pharma partner (and there is interest) for:
3) Use as a broad spectrum antiviral for other respiratory viruses.

This is stunning. Profit margins for covid treatments without a big pharma partner would not need to be shared and must be great for shareholders. Presumably government are able to make orders and organise distribution for covid treatments as they are doing for vaccines. Brilliant news.

Regarding cashflow, I assume any government orders/pre-orders would have enough cash deposits to oil the wheels of production, so don't see further fundraising as necessary.

Hope we get some positive news from Activ-2 soon and possibly use of combined data from HT to get us EUA rather than waiting for the P3 readout.

Astonishing the share price is not responding better to this great news!

Also, covid symptoms include dry rather than productive cough.
That means not coughing up sputum.

The home trial was for people in their own homes with clinical input via a zoom call.

Scinv, do you have any idea how unlikely collection of sputum samples is even on a busy hospital ward.
How likely is it that people at home could collect sputum samples then return them to Synairgen when they were ill and isolating/unable to leave home.

Have some sense before you make unreasonable criticisms of a trial which was a remarkable achievement.