Member Info for RorkesDrift

G-mann. You did read the other posts?

Yep but plenty of companies out there with good stories, zero sales and one trick ponies.

One of the immunotherapies was a PL-1 check point inhibitor. Avacta have a number of compounds with this type of compound built in (biphasic) The trial is important since it demonstrates the validity of this therapeutic target.

Results from pre-clinical in vivo studies show clinically relevant doses of anti-PD-L1 Affimer proteins were very well tolerated with no adverse effects and good in-serum half-lives, reducing the need for repetitive injections to reach a therapeutically relevant concentration. The Affimer inhibitors were able to significantly reduce tumour growth in a syngeneic mouse model, demonstrating their bioavailability and functionality as therapeutic molecules.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/11/new-cancer-treatment-destroys-tumours-in-terminally-ill-finds-trial?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

How could this be improved?

Oh hang on .... (Goes to Avacta development page, starts grinning)

STC - I thought GB meant 200 enquiries a day (is this app download) and the conversion rate was 30% - in 1/3 actually stump up cash.

Conservative ;-)

It is possible to do a sensitive on it - £0.40 may be more realistic but then is 5M a month for the next two years looking likely?

The Tx needs momentum from LFD profit - volume x low margin is where I think it will end up.

Recently £1 per test is being quoted - given the huge volumes involved I believe tenders will state a minimum requirement that several tests meet and then it will be a race to the bottom.

If they need £50M for next stage and net profit for LFD of £0.20 then they need to sell 250M tests. At capacity of 5M tests per month that is 4 years+.

Given they won't spend £50M on day 1, they have two years to build up war chest before current cash runs out then it is doable - only thing is they need to sell 5M tests per month.

However, I'd prefer they get several projects going even if this means partnering on a couple. That said that seems to be the approach and perhaps they have kept the golden eggs in house.

Cannot spend cash you do not have. Normal route would be partnership or fund raise. Timing may enable some milestone money to arrive but suspect few months worth at most.

LFDs offer an alternative. The other Dx and vet revenue help buy the odd fish supper.

My money - get phase 1 data on AVA004 and then NASDAQ at a valuation $1B+. Another Good reason for prioritising this candidate (fast and lower risk)

What I took from it was that Govt want some controls in place over data.

My understanding is data goes from sensor to a central point where the AI goes to work. This central point is owned and controlled by Deepverge.

The processed data needs to go back to the public body.

GB mentioned encryption which is normally associated with secure data transfer. Perhaps though governments want noone else but themselves to have sight of data. Alternative is to put servers in each govt dept but then the algorithmns could go walkabout.

Avacta are spending about £20.4M a year net (see H1report)

They have £37M in the bank. So just under two years.

They have prioritised Ava0006 (dox) since this will yield profit sooner than the affimer based therapeutics. However, the later is on-going and offers the potential for greater returns. However, any big steps require cash either their own or a partners.

Therefore any return from lfds is strategically important. Every bit of cash that comes in can accelerate the multiple shots on goal. When we say its now all about Tx it isn't. TX is driven by Dx.

FAP activated Velcade.

To be honest I'm more intrigued by the AVA004 PD-L1 antagonist programme: AVA027, a PD-L1/TGfß receptor trap combination and AVA028, a PD-L1/IL2 bispecific. They also have a punt at LAG-3 and the TMAC program. Suspect we will hear more from LG before much about these.

Apologies cf = compare.

So the trial is cf flu and covid jabs together vs apart. You can see use of placebo in both arms to enable both approaches

I suspect you mean a no vaccine arm. I think the flu studies have been done with placebo arm and shown a benefit. It would therefore be unethical to ask someone not to receive a flu jab. The same is true of C19 - at the very least it has reduced hospital and death rates. Again it would be unethical to ask someone not to receive an intervention which improves their health outcome.

A vital part of protecting the whole population from flu is to vaccinate children, who we know are ‘super-spreaders’, passing the virus more easily to those around them. This differs from COVID-19, where the overwhelming majority of children experience mild or no symptoms and transmit no more than adults.

Flu can be an extremely unpleasant illness in children, with those under the age of 5 being more likely to be hospitalised due to flu than any other age group. Vaccinating children helps protect them in the first instance, so that they can stay in school and parents don’t have to take time off work to look after them. It also stops them from passing on flu to older relatives and other vulnerable groups, who can suffer from the complications of flu.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-swab-idUSKBN26R3DH

PCR also have a false -ve rate. There will always be cases of+ve LFD followed by -ve PCR.

That's not to say this is what is happening but cannot be ignored.

Hasn't even started tuning up

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext

Effectiveness against infections declined from 88% (95% CI 86–89) during the first month after full vaccination to 47% (43–51) after 5 months. Among sequenced infections, vaccine effectiveness against infections of the delta variant was high during the first month after full vaccination (93% [95% CI 85–97]) but declined to 53% [39–65] after 4 months. Effectiveness against other (non-delta) variants the first month after full vaccination was also high at 97% (95% CI 95–99), but waned to 67% (45–80) at 4–5 months. Vaccine effectiveness against hospital admissions for infections with the delta variant for all ages was high overall (93% [95% CI 84–96]) up to 6 months.

With thanks to other BB.

Bliddy phane. Bronchoconstrition.

Breakdown by body system and descriptive stats. So how many skin rashes, how many ingrowing toenails etc.

Formal stats on AE linked to NEB's. How many bronc hobo strict ions, cough etc.

How many patients tolerated treatment - formal stats.

Expert analysis of severe AEs and deaths. Maybe composite (more than one type of outcome eg pneumonia, PTX and death). Formal stats as outlined in protocol. Is avoidance of death an efficient any variable?

Analysis of clinician view - caused not caused by medication

Further analysis and examination of safety signals from this. Free reign at that point

My best guess

Wow - 188 likes already. Full marks they are trying. Hopefully we will see others that enphasise lab quality less and the warmth of a home use more - presumably taken at same time?