Scancell founder says the company is ready to commercialise novel medicines to counteract cancer. Watch the video here.
After the MHRA debacle Sareum overcame this.
Most likely and verging on definite reason being the non establishment of a maximum tolerated dose.
The aussies give them their due assigned a cautious dosage derived from Compounds such as Baricitinib a Jak 1 Jak 2 inhibitor along with their associated safety profile risk due to off target effects.
We are not Jak1 Jak2.
We are Tyk2 Jak1 with the selectivity of around 80% of Tyk2 over Jak1.
Later generation inhibitors can be formulated to have greater selectivity over other Jaks.
Keep the faith and regards to all.
Not the most money generating RNS that is for sure.
However, we must look at the positives.
Securing an alternative form of finance should relieve Sareum of the continuing stifling and reduction of the SP. That providing we do not enter a similar type of agreement.
What is required at the moment is 300k, most likely to guarantee us to end of phase 1a data results.
The data results are the make or break of the company. No amount of money injected into the company or current market cap will make a blind bit of difference should the 1801 compound data prove to be unsatisfactory. It would be disastrous.
The other side of the coin is that should tha data be satisfactory then a degree of risk is removed.
Subsequently this will have a positive effect on the SP but in the current financial climate and with RF still having the ability to sell Sareum shares this will without doubt stem any large sustainable SP rise until more positive information is released.
300k in the grand arena of early and mid stage of development is very little and very unlikely that this cannot be raised.
What will concern investors is the amount of dilution that may arise when attempting to raise more funding for later stage.
Sareum in my belief have the ability via entering into an agreement with current interested parties.
The less data that these parties have on compound safety and efficacy the greater share they will want of either the company or the compound or compounds.
The 300k should present no serious problem especially as early toxicity results proving favourable.
As l put in early post this am ot is all about eeking the finance from RF and getting to take us to end of at least phase 1a data results.
More shown buys against sells.
We have around 71 million shares.
3.5 billion in old money shares putting an old money price of 0.5p per share of which we are much much further down the line as now in clinical trial.
RF finance was not good but it allowed the continuation of 1801 to enter into clinical trial following the shenanigans with the MHRA which in addition to considerable cost also resulted on a delay pushing close to a year.
Sareum overcame this problem and no reason as to why they cannot overcome the current predicament.
How much was paid for Deucravacitinib?
We are in a similar arena with a product that has the potential to have greater efficacy in some Indications.
4 billion for Deucravacitinib and if we look at the often quoted 10% success rate to approval and commercialisation that would give us a figure of 400 million.
Not wishing the above to be taken as an exact figure but more indicative of the reduction in risk against rising compound values.
On the brighter side of this we have a greater than this 1 in 10 success factor as early stage safety profile satisfactory.
We have the approval of a TYK2 inhibitor for use in the clinic, ( reassurance due to Deucravacitinib)
A very realistic post Leggster.
The further we progress then so does the element if risk reduce.
For what we have seen so far is satisfactory SAD and await the MAD results and the most important associated data.
Should we take the rapid progress of going from SAD to MAD as an indication of 1801 safety indication ot points very heavily to a more than favourable outcome for end of phase 1a data.
Biomarker data will then become the next important stepping stone as will indicate the potential areas of most efficacy in disease control.
Psoriasis is but one indication of which good efficacy is nigh guaranteed.
TM many moons ago stated in an interview with Andrew Scott that Deucracitinib showed good safety profile and good results in Psoriasis which Sareum found encouraging but at the same time believed 1801 could achieve greater efficacy due to the dual approach of Tyk2 and Jak1.
Once data is realised from Phase l a then the so called interested parties can negotiate some sort of collaboration in one form or another.
I should think that there is a trade off between how long the RF finance can be eeked out against full trial data review.
In this instance there will be expressions of interest as of now with early stage data proving favourable, against later data, whereby biomarker data will provide greater scope as to which Indications 1801 look very promising in, significantly increasing the value of the compound once the likelihood of most successful treatment areas are established.
Informal discussions will continue to be ongoing until the release of safety or safety and biomarker data are realised. The latter giving the compound a greater value.
Should we progress to phase 1b and l rill use the term of highly competitive efficacy in Psoriasis then this will dramatically increase value of 1801.
Of thst there can be of little doubt.
One down side of early phase on licence is smaller upfront payment with higher backend milestones.
All we are looking for to move from phase 1a to phase 1b completion is around 3 million max which is peanuts to what we have and achievements so far.
Ramble on a bit as usual but am like thst sfter night shifts
Regards to all.
We also need take into account that phase 2 clinical trial gave good results in preventing disease progression in patients with advanced stages of cancer that had previously been treated to which little hope remained.
Given at an earlier stage would the results been significantly better?
In addition there were no clinical trials of triple combo with either PARPi or PD-1 that researchers had been calling out for.
I would like to think we will get an update by first week of April on this.
Regards
Not too dissimilar in combo partners to our 737. We should be in clinical use by now after nothing for approacing 5 years.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38402224/
Regards
WHOOPS NO LINK!
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35078817/
Apologies.
I don't think our 737 is of any use in this line of treatment 007.
It is in a sense very similar to our 737.
In combo therapy here good results with Chemo and Parpi. Not too dissimilar from our own.
Take at look at link below gor more in depth info.
Regards
Https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02797964?intr=CHK1%20SRA737&rank=1
Interesting look from latest developments from Acrivon pipeline.
https://acrivon.com/pipeline/
Not new info as from 2019 a year before the withdrawal of the for sale sign of 737 and patent protection obtained by SO.
From T Sen.
Given that anti–PD-L1/anti–PD-1 drugs have recently been approved as monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of SCLC, and that the SRA737 + low dose gemcitabine regimen is currently in clinical trials for SCLC and other malignancies, our preclinical data provide a strong rational for combining this regimen with inhibitors of the PD-L1/PD-1 pathway.
As cancer treatments develop it is becoming very clear of the importance of CHK1 inhibition, most especially in combo therapy.
I have had thoughts on the likelihood that it may have been an intention to scupper other companies from using these combo therapies due to patent protection. Clearly much research has been done in this field of treatment for treating cancers yet very few have progressed to later stage trials.
Prexasertib taken on by Acrivon.
Prexasertib as far as l know not been trialled in anyway with a PD-1 inhibitor.
Regards
Very odd that we have no idea who has taken on 245737.
Chk1i certainly not dead. 2 months now and no update to a licence that is nigh identical to the old Pronai Therapeutics licence.
It is along the lines of an ex member of SO wanted a continuation of the license from CPF.
Possibility of a new company set up for the development of 737 as mentioned private company.
Somebody keeping it all very hush hush for which there must be a reason.
Am certain the old agreement the licensee was required to update the CPF every 3 months.
Doing a lot if digging around but nothing concrete. Would a company set a new company up for the purpose if CHK1 development? If so for what purpose?
Regards and onwards and upwards for 1801.
Basically they have a claim of a PASI75 score after 12 weeks. Pretty certain 1801 can achieve that if not better it.
Deucravacitinib 1st in class is now looking to become not best in class and 4 billion was paid up front.
Good informative pertinent postings from C79 as usual.
Regards
Interesting post HbD.
I don't think you are way out with Sierra Oncology. However, it may well be that former directors or CEO's may have an involvement somewhere along the lines of perhaps a new private company. Nick Glover l have spoken about with MEI Pharmaceuticals but also Mark Kowalski who was Chief Medical Officer.
Stephen Dilley was CEO of Sierra during end development of Momoletonib and the sale of SO to GSK prior to commercialisation.
Shareholders were up in arms at the price of 1.9 billuon for SO. GSK stated that their main objective was for the Momoletonib.
No value had been attributed to 737. Edison had put a value of around 120 million dollars on the then current worth of 737 with a 1 in 6 chance if success. This equates to around 720 million worth if success was gained with the current 737 and LDG combo plus substantial preclinical work but not exhaustive in combination therapy with other inhibitors. This value was also placed prior to gaining patent protections granted on 2020.
Stephen Dilley resigned in 2022 after the takeover of SO by GSK. He was paid a years salary along with other benefits making circa 1.4 million dollars in total.
Why did he resign?
Of he were sacked he would lose these benefits unless an appeal involving legal proceedings would take place. Thete would have to be reason for SO to seek to dismiss him. This would also expose other persons involved in the reasonings for SO dismissal.
Shareholders up in arms, seeking blood.
I am very much of the firm belief that informal discussions had been taking place since 2020 between GSK and formal discussions commenced very late 2021.
Now GSK had met their main objective of obtaining Momoletonib for commercialisation.
What was the non main objective? My opinion of this is since early non formal communications from 2020 that in addition to the probable success of trial data of Momo that 737 was also discussed and that it was in the interest of GSK that 737 was not pursued. Indeed the for sale sign for 737 came down around Easter 2020.
Nothing has been done with 737 since and yet does have a value in addition to significant potential in the treatment of high grade serious ovarian cancer which is in an area of high unmet need.
The recently acquired Tesaro pipeline by GSK for 5.1 billion dollars was already at point of commercialisation and in clinical use. It was also granted clinical use in the EU for HGSOC although at a later period under the watchful eye of the EU safety standards as adverse effects arising warranted observation and restrictions were in place. It is not beyond reasonable comprehension that GSK would not wish to have a competitor in this area with projected sales of over 2 billion a year forecast.
When billions if dollar are involved many means to establish targets by fair means or foul will arise.
In the right hands 737 will be a success as opposed to have the clock run down on a potential beneficial treatmen
Great to here from you C79
Interesting link below not far away from your zero inflated beta distribution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8080968/
Regards
There 1ill be no problem with MAD Leggster ot only takes us up to 30% of maximum anticipated treatment dosage of 1000g per day.
Sareum had put maximum 1000mg per day on 737 and 2hilst adverse effects began to arise ( those that recieved 1200 and 1400mg ) the satisfactory treatment maximum was put at 800mg per day. Interestingly in combo therapy this daily amount can be significantly reduced in combo therapy as has been proven
It is OK l do not got info from 1980"s science data , the field of kinase inhibitors were unknown then and the science of oncology has come on leaps and bounds since.
Our compound is worth what it is worth irrespective of current Market Cap or SP..
I like many here are at a loss to the developments of 737. No indication as to who or why this information is not forthcoming. We don't own 737 but have a 27.5% financial interest, surely that should suffice to allow information as to who and what we are financially involved with.
SDC 1801 all appears fine to no surprise.
Reckon we will get an update this month on either 1801 or 737 or maybe both.
Tic tock tick tok.
Regards
Chemotherapy has advantages in the treatment of cancer. It will kill or cause cancers to mutate.
737 works in parallel with these cancer destroying agents in that it does not allow the multiplication and repair of DNA with strand breaks ie mutated DNA. Much of this is indicated by the control of Chk1 in at the P53 checkpoint. In this sense CHK1 can only limit new cell growth and has little effect in killing cancer tumours that already exist.
What a CHK1 inhibitor does is prevent the replication or production of cancerous cells at the point of reproduction.
Hence CHK1 inhibitors need to work in conjunction with other forms of cancer killing agents or distress caused in the formulation of new cancer cells at the point of mitosis ie cell division and replication.
The most important aspect in over half of cancers is the P53 checkpoint. In this instance l have never found in any shape or form an alternative that addresses this issue
We have WEE1 PARPi and PD-1 but they are also basically ineffective as a mono treatment albeit greater efficacy in combo with the like of Chemotherapy.
CHK 1 inhibitors therefore cannot be ignored as indicated by the resurgence of CHK1 inhibitors in combination therapy. How else do you control cancer cells growing if you do not address one of the most if not the most important areas of signalling pathways if you do not address it.
Later newer approaches made, along with generated hype to induce new therapies which are supposed to address all former problems with previous inhibitors that have not given an appropriate amount of attention to maximise the the potential of inhibitors we already have.
It's a money making game for the pharma that take on to feed their greed not to dissimilar to on going wars created by the West and the US in particular to gain masses on revenue from military weapons production.
Corporate bodies as well as military establishments as well as pharmas are corrupt and that is very easily identified as well those in government play a part which is financially beneficial to them.
I will end on stressing the importance of CHK1 in the treatment of certainly difficult to treat cancers.
Prexasertib which l feel inferior to 737 in that it has issues associated with mycocardia and hence was discontinued and in addition can only be administered intravenously.
However, this did not stop Acrivon taking it on board.
Regards and adding all the time.