Member Info for sadoldgit

Https://solvecfs.org/new-clinical-trial-will-test-how-baricitinib-improves-neurocognitive-function-in-patients-with-long-covid/

What a load of cobblers! Se how desperate companies are to squeeze any glimmer of hope for an ageing early generation Jak1 Jak2 inhibitor.

Yes I am recovering from long covid but apart from having blood clots and am at a high risk of heart attack and stroke l am fine.

How does SDC1801 compare with this pile of cat poo?

Cheer up people we are on the home straight.

Doom and gloom merchants appear, it is the norm.

There are those that thrive on it.

Regards

Interesting to note ACR-368 still developing nicely

They are in addition looking at ACR-368 ìn ultra low gemcitabine combo.

Ultra low they state. Anyone notice the spin?

Chk1 and Gemcitabine.

ACR-368 formerly known as Prexasertib has been studied in combo with Gemcitabine.

There was much work carriedcout in this field by a Michelle Garrett.

Prexasertib exhibited toxic effects when used with Gemcitabine.

Sra737 or CCT245737 displayed a vastly superior tolerance with regards to safety when used in combination with LDG.

Low dose Gemcitabine.

Ultra Low dose Gemcitabine the way forward now as non acceptable low dose of gemcitabine.

Sareums CCT245737 has a far greater potential than Prexasertib l would conclude.

The OncoSignature platform will identify those patients that are most likely to respond to CHK1 inhibitor.

In effect you are selecting the people you can treat and in essence this increases the overall response rate ORR which in effect increases the likelihood of approval for use in the clinic.

737 is far more tolerant when used in combination therapy than other chK1 inhibitors .

Whilst it is difficult to envisage 737 being of megavalue near term it is plausible that it does have a positive value.

Regards

RICEYBOY Ehen did the penny drop with you?

Was that before or after you invested?

Why did you invest I the first place?

What attracted you?

You don't make fense.

I suggest you try and seek some sort of psychiatric help.

You know it makes sense

Ricdyboy.

If?

You not invested here so why post.

If you have list money here which your negative attitude and brhavio suggest then hy nt just move on?

It is you that decided to invest and you who decided when you sold.

The investment gain or loss rests solely with you.

Regards and try and keep calm.

Riceyboy.

You have not given reason just a very poor misguided opinion with nothing to back it up.

My belief is you bought in here on a spike and have lost the lot. You are a very bitter and twisted person.

You don't even know what you were invested in, that has not and is unlikely to change.

The question l asked inviting your comments was with regards to failure of BoundlessBio Chk1 inhibitor.

Clearly this is not only above your level.of comprehension but also indicates your agenda here.

What l post has absolutely no effect here on the market cap or consequent SP value.

How long does it take to develop a candidate and process onto commercialisation?

As for 21 years we have achieved a Tyk2 Jak1 inhibitor which Sareum believe to be best in class.

It has demonstrated no serious adverse effects and given greater than expected levels of uptake in bloodstream.

It will now come under the spotlight.

First generation Jakis are on their way out due to dose limiting toxicity issues.

Pharmas are looking at safer inhibitors.

Now you tell me as to why a pharma will not have considerable interest in SDC1801 and or 1802 and maybe a candidate for BBB CNS diseases.

Your comrade wolf over on ADVN even bragged about selling at its peak in 2021 and yet slates Saŕeum and its investors off as have achieved nothing in 21 years.

The SP has gone from 0.18p to 9.2 p a fact that neither if you 2 will acknowledge.

That is a rise of over 5000% or 50 fold.

We now have a larger pipeline

Sfc1801 has proven best in class safety results in phase1

SDC1802 still ongoing with translational studies.

Recent investigational work on our compound with possible CNS inhibitor.

We are now in possession of SRA737.

It has not been given back to us as we never owned in the first place.

It is market sentiment which creates the SP.

Market sentiment does not indicate whether a drug will be successful or not.

What it can do is deter investment so that a company will fail not on its potential but on difficulty in obtaining finance.

Share price or market cap of around 20 million is extremely low for what we have in our pipeline and over 3.5million in cash runway.

Pick the bones out of that one!

Regards

Good post Num4

Interesting that Boundless Bio's CHK1 inhibitor not fit for monitherapy.

Is it the mode of the CHK1 inhibitor how it works or a failure of the compound itself?

Since Acrivon with the once discontinued Prexasertib has been fast tracked into areas of urgent unmet need utilising their oncology signature platform it would suggest failed compound as opposed to failed concept of chl1 and p53 checkpoint.

Of course if we understand how the inhibitor chk1 works we can see the advantages of I vomo therapy.

Haemological toxicity with regards to this inhibitor cannot be overcome. It is extremely doubtful that incombo therapy would be attempted as some inhibitors prove further issues with toxicity when used in combination.

SRA737 is very tolerant of working with other inhibitors such as PD-1 and parpi and as most if us know works well with regards to safety with chemo ie Gemcitabine.

That my opinion based on what l have learned over the years.

Perhaps we could have some constructive dialogue from the likes of Surfie1961 or even Riceyboy with regards to the workings of Chk1, reasons for failure , and of course resistance to.

Regards

The global market for kinase inhibitors is experiencing a surge in demand, particularly for safer and more efficacious inhibitors. This demand is driven by the increasing prevalence of cancer and chronic diseases, as well as ongoing advancements in targeted therapies. The market is projected to grow significantly, reaching $89.9 billion by 2034, fueled by the need for more effective and less toxic treatment options.

Good afternoon Benhowell489

'Badsterman - why do we think they will make this particular self imposed deadline? What evidence do we have?'

Whilst not wishing to appear pedantic it is a timeline and most certainly not a deadline self imposed or otherwise.

We may well have a transformational deal in progress that trumps tox study.

Tim however or anyone on the BoD are not going to make this kind of statement.

I take it you can remember the last time TM spoke of a transformational deal?

It annoys me that when progress gets delayed for whatever reason something must be wrong with the compound. That is some peoples mentality but not all.

For those that have been in Sarrum a few years will know what Sareum are like with their expectations. They spread to creep along at a xnails pace.

There is rarely a sense of urgency with the only one I can think of being phase 1 trials down under.

I not saying Sareum do not have their faults.

They have funds for at keast another year under the current intentions

Look outside the box xnd ask yourself why are Sareum looking into bbb znd CNS diseases

That did not sppear overnight..

Before a companies pipeline are bought lock stock and barrel the buyer will want to know what they are buying and commercialisation value and take into sccount risk.

I don't believe we can afford developing another compound to end of preclinical as we are continuing translational studies on 1802.

Some of us been here a long time and yes some of us do get a tad agitated when it.looks that timelines not being adhered to. Almost to the point of contempt

Regards

Ps What is the potential market size for a bbb cns inhibitor,?

'Phase 1 studies in the UK. We STILL do not know who or what is to blame here. Most blame MHRA but it's a missed deadline nonetheless.'

Who us this 'we'above.

Not a case of blame.

I know who has at fault but not as to the reason why and l have posted that on this board.

The fault lies with the MHRA.

I an not painting anything positive here just facts.

The MHRA were contacted by Sareum as to why the the MHRA were unable to approve application.

They would not and did not reply.

MHRA were short staffed and had very few experienced staff and according to Tim Mitchell only one person in the country in the position of cta approval.

Tim's words were they are not going to reply as to do so would admit that they are in the wrong.

Pertaining to timelines an update on our SDC compounds gave an expected commencement time of May 25.

To add another angle Sareum are looking at possible inhibitors for the central nervous system.

This in reality is only possible by crossing the blood brain barrier.

There are huge undermet needs here.

Again we are looking at toxicology studies here and the importance of.

There us massive risk here but it is very likely that we can produce an inhibitor satisfactory enough in efficacy and safety to go into commercialisation.

To even get off the starting line toxicology Indications need to be understood along with proof of concept.

You would like to think that Sareum have focused on toxicology studies to satisfy their previous stated timelines.

Nigh 4 million in the bank should see 1801 to end of tox studies and results.

The bigger goal here is of course the diseases of the CNS.

Massive market and very very few effective treatments.

No treatments that will cure just delay the onslaught of.

So it may just well be that whoever is advising or guiding sareums actions have a keen interest in the whole of SDC in its entirety.

I note that Sareum use cleverly the word 'advise'.

To use such words as directed or dare l say instructed would imply negotiated discussions and that would be from an interested party that is now holding the hand of a person sitting in the driving seat.

Above is speculation on my part.

The early stage first generation inhibitors and indeed some of the later inhibitors are dead or dying.

The likes of Baricitinib now being trialled in CNS Indications is dead. Even if it obtained a degree of efficacy deemed now as satisfactory has severe boxed warnings.

It will be pushed out by the most recently developed compounds with acceptable safety profiles in line with or comparable to SOTYKTU.

The market is massive znd l gont think dear old SOTYKTU is going monopolise this market.

Although not a CNS indication the placebo gave a better efficacy result in Ulcerative Colitus than Deucravacitinib.

Mmmm we are working on that one BMS said.

It certainly raises the probabilities of a joint venture.

Regards

The only damage done by this allosteric Tyk2 Jak1 inhibitor is decimate the earlier and less safer jaki inhibitors.

It has done us no harm apart from illustrate our very slow development methodology.

Long term tox studies should have been started at commencement of phase1 a SAD trial.

Of course we did not have the funds.

Be interesting to see how many discontinuations we get .

Basically Bizzi I am not overly concerned.

Sareum timescale and deadlines are appalling, however in essence this report on the Chinese Tyk2 Jak1 inhibitor endorses the supportive information of Tyk2 Jak1 being superior to single agent Tyk2 yet maintain an excellent safety profile.

PASI score of 75% in 12 week period impressive but this is what Tim and Co were aiming at.

Far more impressive than SOTYKTU that did not achieve anywhere near the same.

Breprocitinib that was our most advanced competitor had jak associated problems creating dose limiting toxicity issues.

We own 1801 and 1802 with all its patents.

Also take into account this report is presented to show all the plus points.

It is not an in depth report as such that would appear in a medical journal.

Tim and Co would be well aware of these developments as would other large pharma.

It is a very competitive market with new compounds being developed all the time.

If you were a large oharma what would you be looking at and what would influence your decision to buy?

However, crossing the blood brain barrier for tge treatment of CNS diseases is still in its early stages.

What effect would sareum releasing an RNS to state the trials started yesterday do?

What would be the benefit?

Apart from a little bit of reassurance to some investors here not a lot.

I have a feeling there are one or two pessimists about thinking that as we have no news of the start something must be wrong.

The MHRA being unable to grant approval of the CTA for 1801.

Sareum not informed us via RNS. Then we receive an RNS around 30 days after the cut off time ie the timeframe that decision would be received by.

No reasons given at all with regards to required information.

Sareum contacted them yet received no reply.

Now a particular individual here was postulating that there must be something wrong with either the compound or Sareum.

Was there a problem with Sareum or their compound?

Application in Australia went through a tad el rapido.

The only gripe I had was why did Sareum not use a clinical trial specialist that deals with handling.

Yes it will cost but they are experts in this field.

With regard to SP in next 2 weeks if no news and possible drop, in the grand scheme of things a few percent on a price drop is iny opinion immaterial.

We know nothing of what is going on on the background. We were not told of intent to seek 63.5% of SRA737 yet it happened.

The grand scheme is to get a licence, a JV or if the price is right a buyout in what is a highly competitive market.

Is there a possibility of licensing 737?

Yes

Is there a possibility of licence or joint venture on 1801 or another sdc inhibitor whether in current development or what?

We don't know.

The commencement of 1801 toxicology trial is scheduled.

This is different than an expectation.

But of course we can expect trial to start and indeed may be already started.

What do we expect to receive I an RNS?

The trial started on the 20th of May for example.

Not much they can add to that.

Now should they chose to wait a short period of time for example 4 weeks they can report all.g the lines of.

We are pleased to announce that toxicology studies that commenced on the 20th of May are progressing in line with company expectations.

Preliminary data so far has shiwn that dose rates at such a rate mg per kilo of bodyweight has shown no signs of adverse effects

despite having significantly increased the daily dosing equivalent to that in the SAD and MAD studies.

Blah de blah.

It will be bloody interesting to see how high they do take as maximum therapeutic dose at 12.5mg per kilo or 1000mg per patient as Tim claimed they had looked at over 30 times therapeutic dose with no observed adverse events on preclinical and thus will be in vivo.

My self l find it very exciting. The culmination of 20 years work.

There are companies been going many many years longer than Sareum that have not achieved such excellent SAD and MAD study results in a Tyk2 Jak1 inhibitor.

Question here is would you prefer to be in possession of the 15 plus year development of SDC1801 or the Pfizer Breprocitinib along with its dose limiting restrictions due to safety concerns ?

Of course as we all know 1801is not our only compound.

Take the molecules as building blocks.

What are our limits?

What are our expectations ?

What are the expectations of an interested party?

What else out there is available on the Tyk2 Jak1 arena?

With unlimited funding how much value can be assigned to the SDC compounds?

Significant change of direction since July last year!

Regards

Take into account also the cost saving and increased revenue of increasing patent protection.

To maximize patent protection for a pharmaceutical inhibitor, companies can leverage several strategies beyond the initial product patent. These include securing patents for new formulations, dosage forms, or regimens of the inhibitor. Additionally, they can obtain patents for novel combinations of the inhibitor with other drugs or for new therapeutic uses of the inhibitor. Furthermore, companies can explore the possibility of "chiral switches" or patenting new manufacturing processes to extend protection. '

Plenty of space here for a Chk1 inhibitor to fit in.

The CPF will be out if their depth pushing for development of 737.

Did CPF vet the new US pharma?

I would not be surprised to see an update on 737 by July.

As much as we can speculate Tim and Co know far more than we do.

Does most of the value of 737 originate from its own potential performance in combo or by using in combo thereby increasing patent protection period?

Repurposing and incombo therapy looks to be all the rage at the moment.

If we look at a business point of view they can run the patent life down and try to pick up for a song, the use a means of increasing patent life.

On the downside of course we also have Wee 1 inhibitors shelved that can be used in combo.

The pharma can take its pick.

Regards

Also bear in mind that the technical author J V Heymach who gave a glowing report on 737 was also an advisor to GSK.

Not exactly a level playing field.

As for the new private US pharma obtaining IND and the significance.

How long has Niraparib and Pembrolizumab got left ruling the roast with their domination in the EU?

All about getting the foot in the door first.

Take into account that these large pharmas pay funds albeit not necessarily direct to legislative bodies but also provide advice.

In this sense do these large pharmas have influence over legislative and Medical research authorities?

Regards

Good afternoon HbD and Celtic007.

Interesting link below that supports the majority of the view that GSK did not want 737,not for that it did not work but they had already bought the Tesaro pipeline for Niraparib but also was being prepared for incombo therapy with Pembrolizumab Ketruda.

Keytruda which is owned by Merck and patent coverage to 2028.

Clearly here it is in Mercks interest as well as GSK not to allow development of 737 especially given the Indications.

This however does not neccassarily mean that 737 is out if the equation.

Note the timescales of 2019 report.

The timing of the buy of Sierra Oncology.

The removal of 737 from the shop window.

Removal of funding for 737 and basically followed by 2 years delayed development before the announcement of the Sierra buyout for Momoletonib.

Oy yes said GSK we met our primary objective.

By the mention of primary objective it infers there is a secondary objective.

Form your own conclusions here.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2735888

Thanks for that post Leggster.

This does make a lot of sense especially with developments since July last year.

Regards

We do know that Tim did step down.

Scientists are not renowned for being great business people and tend not to be great communicators.

Tim likely over stressed especially as CEO.

Riverfort Global deal ( back in business and suspension lifted a few day back) was disastrous.

I think theobject here was to bust the company and then sell as RF would own all the shares.

Poor decisions made perhaps but to a case of comein to the parlour said the spider to the fly.

Clearly there has been a change of direction since June last year.

Should they be in discussions then an interested pharma will need to know the safety and long term toxicology will need to be known.

Indications indeed are important as to suitability or indeed ability to design new compounds with current molecules.

Clearly progressing on the SDC compound development.

Good afternoon Leggster.

Surely an option to acquire would be a tad difficult.

It depends on whether they wish to acquire the whole company or a compound.

Sareum could at any time on licence 737 or e891 for example.

Have a look at companies that get taken over.

All I have seen so far is an interest in an inhibitorand then the company buys the company out.

Ipilimumab was a tad drawn out took several years and BMS was involved in financing development of this drug from around the 2018 period.

It took years and now Ipilimumab in combination therapy with Nivolomab.

Now approved for clinical use in the EU and now the UK by the MHRA.

Interestingly BMS supply funding to the MHRA but not directly. They also give advice.

No real difference than GSK or the other big pharmas. No problems they have with approvals from regulatory bodies.

Tim's words to me were we are looking to onlicence or partner but of course if an offer was made for the right amount then they would sell.

I don't see Potnaks reasonings for development late Q4 or early 2026 being far out. My own opinion on for what they are worth is late tox study to preliminary data release and very shortly afterwards.

The delay in starting of course has pushed Q3 into Q4 . However that does not rule any developments happening between now and then.

Put yourself I a pharmas position, to spend millions what are you expecting in return..

Some of the risk has already been removed.

This is with regards to its viability of being a treatment

Long term tox studies will significantly increase value of 1801. Satisfactory results that is. Then will be justified as safe for long term use.

Of the upmost importance will be the Dose limiting toxicities.

Sareum will drastically increase the dosaging in these toxicology studies to tge point of attempting to create an adverse event.

Normally done prior to clinical trial and Sareum never achieved a maximum tolerated dose in preclinical.

Not sure how the can run the two in tandem as 2 different types of study.

Results are something to look forward to.

Riceyboy, why don't you attend their AGM if there is one next year?

As usual you have nothing of any value to contribute.

Do you accept that 1881 has,a better safety profile than our nearest and most advanced competitor Breprocitinib?

You can put your opinions forward in a debate

According to you l hang on to their every word.

I do not and expressed concerns at the AGM one regarding the start of toxicology studies for which was early in the New Year.

That has not materialised.

Conversation with Tim regarding 1801 and 1802 difference and crossing the bbb.

How about you get a job or are you thst much of an abject failure they won't even allow you back on the ADVFN chat board?

You have a chip on your shoulder.

You need get a life.

Regards