Member Info for sadoldgit

'The company is in discussions to access alternative funding arrangements'

There is not much else Sareum can put in the RNS.

Regards

Https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/autoimmune-diseases

Good evening again HbD.

I share the same thoughts as yourself with regards to data.

Would you as an interested party invest in any form of a compound until you have data confirmation that the compound has a satisfactory profile to be taken to the next phase of clinical trial?

Until such confirmation is received ot is very unlikely that an interested party would commit themselves. Expectation is one thing but satisfactory data is the proof of the pudding.

Safety data ( and l note the use of the term top notch) is expected by Sareum in Q2.

In addition to safety data, basically LADMET, Pk profile, tolerability there will also be extremely important biomarker data.

Biomarker data will give areas of treatment that SDC1801 should show the most potential in.

A list not exhaustive below.

person may have more than one autoimmune disorder at the same time. Common autoimmune disorders include:

Addison disease

Celiac disease - sprue (gluten-sensitive enteropathy)

Dermatomyositis

Graves disease

Hashimoto thyroiditis

Inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn disease, ulcerative colitis)

Multiple sclerosis

Myasthenia gravis

Pernicious anemia

Reactive arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis

Sjögren syndrome

Systemic lupus erythematosus (lupus)

Type I diabetes

We don't need the whole of the above just 1 or 2 to start with in addition to Psoriasis.

For an interested party they will need the biomarker data and interpretation of.

Once confirmation of biomarker data we can move forward.

All about the data.

In 2011 Sareum jumped over 1100% in one day on good preclinical trial data of which we had only 27.5%.

As it sits SDC1801 in its current stages of development is worth considerably more than the current market cap. It will be worth considerably more on satisfactory data than it is now.

Your last paragraph regarding RF l agree fully with.

One thing we can all agree on is without RF we would not be in the situation we are now.

The most important glass half full says it has enabled us to progress to clinical trial.

The downside is the extreme negative impact it has had on the SP

The SP is recoverable it just needs satisfactory data that leads to good investment.

Regards

I am working in Kent at the moment and would be pleased to meet up for a beer at some time in the not too distant future PC1954.

Gunner68. Appreciate your response, however at one time finance was easy to come by and unfortunately that is no longer the case.

An agreement in some form another with an interested party is one route, but this in turn is not straight forward as dependant on what and who the interested party or parties intend on doing with 1801 and how much funds they have themselves for further development and/or how much they are prepared to pay upfront at which stage of phase completion reflects in increased value of 1801.

For example a 10 to 20% ownership of sareum for circa 2 to 4 million advance.

They will have options and it is down to BoD took at the best or least damaging way forward as some would chose to see it.

Regards.

Good evening PC1954 your opinion very close to mine.

Apologies for long winded post earlier.

I just put my thoughts down on my little mob.

Regards

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

Thanks HbD. Not long in from a nightshift.

Regards

Last update posted June 2023?

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