Member Info for sadoldgit

Sp increase on news can be big at times

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/TRLS/agreement-with-johnson-johnson-74cpc0bdvxnmswc.html

Funnyguy, you completely miss the point.

The article by BMJ will be peer reviewed before it is entered into a journal.

This is not about Sareum directly of course

Did you manage to find the 800 million value that l claimed to assign 737.

I don't think so, search as hard as you like you will never find as never posted such valuation.

The value of Sareum is in the two SDC compounds.

If you cannot see the value with what data will have already been supplied with then l don't see why you claim to be invested here.

There is a lot more involved than just Jakis

Much of it is about molecular make up and purity is of upmost importance.

What purity as a percentage can be obtained in SDC compounds by the patented crystallography

Of a compound used during manufacture?

What are the downsides of poor purity?

Is 98% good enough.

Is it not good enough.

Brilliant results achieved with 1801 in Phase 1a clinical trial.

Tim was very pleased with results as performed better than expected.

LADMET very good and better than other known Tyk2 Jak compounds?

Why is this?

Regards

Of importance is to what we have to compete with is a list below and a decent overview of Jaks in general.

Waste of time me putting a link if people can't be bothered to read.

The following link is certainly not hard to understand!

https://ard.bmj.com/content/83/2/139

As l have asked several posters mainly those that are negative to put a value on SDC1801 alone

SAD and MAD study results are fine.

The remaining hurdle is long term toxicology studies.

Purpose to establish we don't exhibit adverse side effects that are associated with other Jak 1 2 and3 inhibitors.

With certain adverse events associated with Jak inhibitors it leads to not being a first in line of treatment or even a second.

No detected increase in creatinine levels at therapeutic doses. That is way better than Breprocitinib.

Funny guy.

As far as l know l have never placed an 800 million valuation for SRA737.

Perhaps you could locate where l have stated this.

Yhe maximum valuation l pit on 733 were a couple of years back where Edison state a figure of circa 600 million dollars and of course if that were the case we would only see 27.5%

I think what you are alluding to is the price at a past AGM where 1801 and 1802 were put by TM at 800 million each.

No mention as to what stage being reached that the compounds would achieve this value.

If they want them they will have to pay and then Tim said we will be looking at new compounds either to buy or develop. That around 3+ years ago.

With regards to taking a 50% plus ownership in 737 we would need considerable investment as the previous on licenses in total around 300 million dollars.

Then phase 1 studies in combo costs and satisfactory results to enter phase2 clinical study and that in my estimation close to a 100 million plus dollars.

A lot of money to put in for largish pharme let alone a minnow of a company with a circa 25 million market cap.

Again please point out to where l have made an 800 million value for SRA737.

Regards.

Good afternoon Gunner68.

Yes it is true there have no apologies or even an acknowledgement that RF finance was bad.

All we recieved it was the best option available.

Yet we have had an equity raise which raised over 1.2 million with ease. Why was this option not looked at. No need for a 50% dilution with the RF debacle.

The share price is low yet l do not share your view that they have the upper hand.

Whilst l can understand some may be sitting on some hefty losses due to the the current SP it is by no means an end to their investment.

Sareum cannot realistically takeover development of 737. We hold a 27.5% financial interest that is all. It is owned by the CPF.

Furthermore how on earth does Sareum raise a couple of hundred million at least to take through trial escalation.

Their are developments with kinase inhibitors trying to address CHK1 issues!

I am not saying 737 is finished per se.

Neither am l saying it would be a blockbuster.

The potential is there to be put into commercialisation but faces stiff opposition from new inhibitors.

As much as GSK did not want 737 l don't believe they wanted anyone else to have it.

It posed a very real threat. Sierra Oncology did nothing since the start of 2020 with 737.

Their focus was on Momo. They would have been in dialogue with GSK.

Oh a takeover!

Subject to FDA application and approval of momo, we will buy you out.

All they have to then say it us not in our best interests to continue development of 737.

That is it!

In 737 we have developed a compound in conjunction with the ICR to produce a CHK1 inhibitor. They designed the target area. Sareum created the compound.

With SDC compounds we have designed both target area and the chemical compounds.

So far looking very good, we have targeted different pathways that are important in treating an indication.

Short term dosing has given excellent results in having no severe adverse events or observed increases in creatinine levels.

Further studies required to establish effects of long term use.

All about getting it right. Tyk2 has proven itself as a good safety profile not requiring laboratory testing for treated patients.

We have selectivity Tyk of at least 4 fold over Jak1 and my option for what it is worth is close to 10 fold. But that is my impression.

Jaks are classed in their own world and the amount of selectivity over, is not taken into account.

A very in depth topic that l will not waste my time and discuss in detail here.

Whilst the SP remains low which is not good, the feedback on 1801 so far indicates, a very promising future.

Take it or leave it as to what l have posted.

What has happened has happened with regards to finance and no good dwelling on the subject.

Regards and have a great weekend.

Surfie1961.

You can't be bothered just about sums you up.

I asked you to put a value on SDC1801.

You have not done so.

When people do put figures up from 250 million plus you scorn.

The current shareprice does not represent the value of SDC1801.

If you have bought on a high then you have a problem.

To sell out now is just as pointless as spouting your negative comments with regards to falls in the SP.

Do you have a portfolio of shares or just a few in Sareum?

As for the waiting for an onlicence or buyout is not a good strategy being your opinion, my strategy is waiting for on licence or opinion.

Like some who can't be bothered to read my posts or links you will remain ignorant of developments or setbacks in the world of pharmaceuticals.

Perhaps if you had been bothered to carry out a tad more research and that includes worldwide events you maybe would not be in the situation you are now.

I attended the AGM, you could not be bothered.

I came away content with what l have.

Most important was the chat with Tim post recorded meeting.

If you don't understand what we have then you have no idea of worth.

What are our 2 biggest competitors?

How are they performing.

What are the recent changes the goverment have made with regards to the MHRA?

What threats does that pose to Sareum.

You won't know, as you can't be bothered.

I post here about much of this.

Whether persons chose to read or can't be bothered is their prerogative.

But l least l post for the benefit of those who chose to read and that is whether they agree or not.

It opens debate.

You constantly blame the BoD and put forward very poor attempts to undermine those that put forward a positive side.

How on earth do you have the audacity with your attempted undermining when you can't even be bothered to read a post, let alone carry out any research.

Surfie1961..

' for once you have been correct'

Don't try and be clever.

Surfie you are in no position to judge if l am correct or not.

Did l not say that 1801 would have no problems on phase 1 clinical trial studies?

The advantages of dual inhibition over tyk2 ?

I post factual information and excerpts.

L have asked you before how much of a value do you place on SDC1801?

If you can't give some sort of a ball park figure why on earth you invested here?

If Pfizer owned 1801 would it be worth any more than Sareum owning it?

All you do you little Ray of sunshine is come on here and moan. If you are married l feel sorry for your misses.

Just to give you a little heads up!

The objective is on licence or buy out if Sareum.

Price in the meantime it not overly important.

We are one of many AIM companies that have been hammered since Feb 22.

You can't even be bothered to make it to the AGM.

If you are that concerned you would agree tge BID in person as opposed post your constant drivel on here.

If you don't like move on.

Regards

Can you give the reasons as to why that should 1801 have outstanding safety data yet have dual Tyk2 Jak1 selectivity it should lack efficacy?

What is the main reasons that drugs fail?

How does safety affect efficacy?

Chk1 inhibitors are a class of drug and as yet none have been approved for cinical use.

Jak inhibitors have been approved for clinical use and Jak inhibitors are a class.

I do not see a correlation with regards to 737 and Chk1 inhibitors with SDC 1801 and jak inhibitors.

Allosteric tký2 inhibitor approved fir clinical use.

Failed dismally in UC.

Why is that?

Surfie1961,

How are the likes going for B&W v FG?

Here, we investigated the in vitro and in vivo anti-tumor activity of the potent, highly selective, orally bioavailable small molecule inhibitor of CHK1 (CHK1i), SRA737, in CCNE1amp HGSOC and in HRD HGSOC models with acquired PARPi-resistance. SRA737 was selected for these studies as it was determined to be the best selective CHK1 inhibitor (CHK1i) candidate for clinical development available at the time. We hypothesized that intrinsically elevated replication stress, as a result of cyclin E overexpression, would predispose these tumors to CHK1i-induced catastrophic genomic instability following monotherapy treatment with SRA737. For HRD tumors, we hypothesized that defective HRR (e.g., BRCA1/2 mutation) may elevate sensitivity to CHK1i, SRA737 either alone or in combination with PARPi, given the well-established role of CHK1 in HRR, as well as other aspects of the replication stress response.

That from May 2024.

Albeit preclinical

Funny guy.

'If it was useful we would have taken control of it.'

NO WE WOULD NOT!

Give your reasons as to why you think that we would have control of 737 with just a 27.5% financial interest.

As for 1801 the full report of the toxicity studies are completed and signed off.

It will be available to any interested party.

We know that results were good as reported in July RNS.

That good news to us but not an interested party.

They require the data to analyse as will authorising bodies.

Long term toxicology studies is the barrier to overcome.

The data is as it is.

To be produced in a journal requires peer review.

Peer review.

Peer review is someone's interpretation.

The Peer reviewers are paid money for this service

They are not going to paint a bad picture.

Have a look at some pharmaceutical companies reports. This is post peer review.

Many paint a far more positive outcome than achieved in studies.

A regulating body's decision is a mile away from.a peer reviewed medical journal entry.

Are you yourself capable of understanding full report details and able to draw your own conclusions?

It is not by any means easy.

The US pharmaceutical giants basically own our goverment procurement bodies and the authorising bodies too!

Regards

I will add that a peer review will be required before publication in a journal.

This should appear during the toxicology study period.

I will offer an apology to Potnak with regards to this issue as l believe this was what he was referring to.

However, the data is validated and finalised as of 18th December and it is this final stage report that will form part of the requirements into phase2 trial in addition to long term toxicology studies.

Rehards

You are welcome Gunner68.

Data results so far very good and exceeded Tim's expectations.

The long term toxicology studies is the next hurdle to clear.

The value of our 1801 and company value rests on the results from this.

Plenty of dedicated time consuming work gone into the development of 1801.

We are better with regards to adverse events way better than Breprocitinib.

As Tim said several years back 'what we are very good at is chemistry'. that from a very modest person.

Regards

Potnak the review of the data has been completed. The completion was finalised by the signing of the data on the 19th December and you will be looking at entry into a journal in around 3 months.

That was stated by John Reader.

Hence Tim stated now in a position to provide data that supports Sareums case of 1801 out performing Breprocitinib, our closest competitor according to Tim.

Regards

Good evening PC1954,

Long term toxicology studies.

In a nutshell we are looking at no Major Adverse cardiac events. Associated with early jakis.

No long term irreversible myocardial problems.

No damage to major organs especially kidneys and this will be indicated by increased creatinine levels in the blood

No increase was observed with 1801 on SAD and MAD dosing studies.

737 in monotherapy and in combo contributed no adverse cardiac events associated with other CHK1 inhibitors especially Prexasertib which was withdrawn from further development because of this.

Should we progress with good safety data without being unduly affected by the above then we are best in class!.

There has been a lot of tightening up with regards to safety and yellow box inhibitors making them for use as a 3rd or fourth line of treatment after others fail.

It is a case of efficacy is nowhere near as important as safety being the current thinking.

We have a small amount if Jak1 which should give us no undue side affects.

All we can do is wait for the studies to start and get the occasional feedback on progression.

There will be plenty of eyes on 1801.

Many of the early inhibitors have basically had it due to long term toxicology issues

Some of the newer ones like Breprocitinib fair not much better.

So interesting times ahead in which the current market cap does not reflect the current value on 1801 alone.

As you know yourself a pharma will want to be 100% satisfied that we are safe and best in class before parting with many many millions of pounds.

I don't see an on license so no up front payment with milestones. Phsrmas will invest and put big bucks in when they have sufficient data to satisfy the compound is as good as claimed to be.

No licence, buyout as they ain't going to want to pay 10% Royalties on a drug that has at least a 10 year plus commercial life patent protected.

Regards

Jyseleca a jak1 inhibitor to rival Tofacitinib?

Tofacitinib originally stated as Jak3 inhibitor is Jak1 and Jak 3 with selectivity over Jak2.

Problem comes with Jak1. Jak 1 will cause problems as will Jak2 especially and Jak3 will cause problems too.

We are and l know for a fact less than 1801 is less than 20% Jak1 which in turn by a factor of 5 fold over jaK 2 and 3.

SDC1802 has higher jak content than SDC1801.

As Tim stated around 3 years ago the amount of Jak1 added in their belief was the optimum amount.

We are Tyk2 with effectively what is a dash of Jak1.

Jak1 2 and 3 inhibitors will have adverse event with some being major.

The optimum amount of Jak1 should give the 80% plus selectivity of Tyk2 over jak1, increased efficacy with out compromising the established safety profile of Tyk2 inhibitors.

Not much more can be said on this subject as have posted plenty of links over past few days.

Good post LSBM.

190 million for 1801 alone l would say would be extremely undervalued.

Pretty certain we can improve on efficacy over Deucravacitinib and we are proven better than Breprocitinib with regards to safety.

Certified results of 1801 tox studies where completed and signed off by John Reader 18th Dec.

As for the long term toxicology studies you need take into account animal selection and preparation of the animals themselves.

Outside of rodents, prep for this can take what seems like an eternity by comparison.

Setting up for these studies are in progress.

Regards

Icotrokinra an IL 23 inhibitor has good results in Psoriasis.

Good efficacy and looking to put up against Deucravacitinib.

Scores look good for Icotrokinra but when you look at time period 24 weeks it is not overly impressive.

We have dual inhibition that is widely accepted to have better efficacy over single inhibition.

Data for 1801s completed as is the review of the data. The total content of the data with regards to evaluation of is not going to be released in an RNS.

Long term toxicology studies are in the process of being set up.

This is the important development at the moment.

The data,we have so far on 1801 shows superiority over Breprocitinib. Fact!

Regards

Https://www.pharmavoice.com/news/pharma-biotech-pipeline-genmab-jnj-patent-market/718247/

Https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/janus-kinase-jak-inhibitors-new-measures-to-reduce-risks-of-major-cardiovascular-events-malignancy-venous-thromboembolism-serious-infections-and-increased-mortality

We are better than the above mentioned