The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
I Should add the company have said the business including the trials are fully funded “UNTIL AT LEAST” autumn.
My guess would be financial jeopardy would not occur until at least 2025. But sometime later this year we will need a financial roadmap and my preference would be earlier rather than into 2025.
All of this might be solved by a JV and who knows Mr Hennings may have been working on one. One thing is for sure we don’t need a commercial director because if the drug succeeds BP will be marketing it
I would agree Spacman that the finances are tight, how tight is impossible to know until we get the update.
The question is will the update include a resolution to that, either in the short or long term, through some funding option / partner involvement / TFG
Will it be partially resolved in the short term by a rise in the share price on news of trials starting, giving the company more financial options.
But this year is pivotal for Synairgen’s survival and Investors holdings. It will be interesting how the market reacts to the upcoming RNS, that may indicate our future prospects.
“ You think somehow UNIVERSAL and Synairgen are engaged in work that all the huge phamaceutical concerns in the world are not interested in and aren't also attemopting to solve - and that somehow - with zero funds and a UNIVERSAL inclusion criteria of anyone with a confirmed respiratory infection - world class ground breaking work is somehow being done ? You're delusional”
Universal Objectives
“To develop phenotypic characterisation of the heterogeneous nature of acute respiratory viral infection and recovery seen in patients admitted to hospital with respiratory symptoms.
(phenotypic analysis - the physical and biochemical characteristics of an organism as determined by the interaction of its genetic constitution and the environment)
Secondary:
To enable accurate stratification of patients for optimal design of future studies of novel pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment strategies”
I guess if I’m delusional I’m in good company with J&J, Southampton Centre for Biomedical Research
Opinion is great as long as it’s opinion based upon facts
Not wildly subjective and completely at odds with the facts.
These are the facts as laid out by Synairgen’s scientists
“Partnering with high quality researchers and collaborators, to ensure it has the right trial designs.
Equipped with the right diagnostic tools, to be able to identify trial participants potentially most likely to benefit from a broad-spectrum antiviral and SNG001.
This work (including biomarker assessments), together with the substantial body of evidence gathered from clinical trials with SNG001 to date”
So when Doc D posts that Synairgen have everything to clearly identify patients from the Sprinter trial. thats patently wrong using the companies own words.
Just as it’s wrong to say the company does not have enough money for their trials when they’ve announced to the market that they do.
People can and do posts all kinds of opinions on this board . I’m always happy to correct correct them with factual information, however annoying that may be
This is the “opinion” of Doc D who isn’t an expert
“The Sprinter deep dive points really clearly to the cohort. Our patients are identifiable in the hospital without the clever modern profiling asays we seem to be waiting for”
These are the facts as laid out by Synairgen’s scientists who are probably a little more qualified than Doc D
“Partnering with high quality researchers and collaborators, to ensure it has the right trial designs.
Equipped with the right diagnostic tools, to be able to identify trial participants potentially most likely to benefit from a broad-spectrum antiviral and SNG001.
This work (including biomarker assessments), together with the substantial body of evidence gathered from clinical trials with SNG001 to date”
Personally I’ll follow the scientist view but we each have a choice on who to believe
After all how can they discover new patient genome stratification methods compared to huge Pharma resources.
The answer is simple, they do the work that isn’t yet commercially interesting.
Unlike traditional pharmaceuticals, biotech products leverage the intricate workings of living organisms to address a wide range of medical conditions. This approach has paved the way for breakthrough treatments and groundbreaking technologies once considered science fiction
I guess you could use the Doc D method of intervention. Wait until they’re in ICU and they’re definitely your patients.
By that time they have life changing consequences to their lungs, heart, kidneys etc and May die anyway and you have an ongoing health service problem in the 10’s to 100’s of thousands of pounds if they survive.
Or you could use precision medicine to identify those patients likely to end up in ICU and give them early intervention and save billions in health costs.
Of course you also need to consider the next pandemic. This one cost the USA 16 trillion and the U.K. 450 billion. So it’s probably a good idea to have a broad spectrum antiviral in your cupboard
Dr Phillip Monk joined Synairgen in October 2006 as Head of Bioscience Development and was appointed to the Board as Chief Scientific Officer in September 2009.
Phillip was previously Director of the Respiratory and Inflammation Biology group at Cambridge Antibody Technology (‘CAT’)
focussed on harnessing the exploitation of the human genome.
He seems quite qualified to work on precision medicine
Prof Djukanovic is a professor of medicine at the University of Southampton's Faculty of Medicine, and was director of the Southampton Centre for Biomedical Research (SCBR) from November 2011 to April 2017. He's the lead of the respiratory and critical care theme within the NIHR Southampton Biomedical
Research Centre (BRC), a centre of excellence funded by the National Institute for Health Research
Prof Djukanovic also heads a multi-disciplinary team whose objective is to find valuable biomarkers of asthma and (COPD). This work has been funded previously by the US funding body, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and more recently by the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) grant to study severe asthma (€23 million). This involves a consortium of academic centres and pharmaceutical companies in a programme led by the Southampton NIHR Respiratory BRU, the Respiratory BRU at the National Heart and Lung Institute (NHLI) in London and the University of Amsterdam.
He seems quite qualified to work on Precision Medicine
It seems they have more specialists knowledge than some give them credit.
They produced a whole presentation on the subject
https://synairgen.ams3.digitaloceanspaces.com/230629-Synairgen-AGM-2023_FINAL.pdf
Precision Medicine
There’s a who field of scientific endeavour around it which is fascinating. At least for some of us it is.
FDA
“Most medical treatments are designed for the "average patient" as a one-size-fits-all-approach, which may be successful for some patients but not for others. Precision medicine, sometimes known as "personalized medicine" is an innovative approach to tailoring disease prevention and treatment that takes into account differences in people's genes, environments, and lifestyles. The goal of precision medicine is to target the right treatments to the right patients at the right time”
I guess the whole field of biomarker identification and
patient stratification is pointless.
Doctors should just wait for people to appear on a ventilator and then they know they’re ill.
You should publish a paper on the subject Doc D
“Our patients are identifiable in the hospital without the clever modern profiling asays we seem to be waiting for. Age, co-morbitiies”……
Well I’m dying to ask Doc D
Tell us the patient profile then for someone who will become severely ill compared to someone who won’t?
Do you have some published scientific article on your answer?
When is a small number of patients a big number ?
The Need
Viruses that cause severe respiratory infections (VRIs) lead to the hospitalisation of more than 3 million people in the US alone each year.
There are currently no broad-spectrum antivirals approved for use in patients who become hospitalised with these sRVIs including SARS-CoV-2, complicated influenza, RSV, adenovirus, parainfluenza and rhinoviruses.
I wonder what the number of patients is if you include Europe. The Far east, the Middle East.
Commercially viable market…..absolutely
Sprinter data was very strong …….
IN THE RIGHT COHORT OF PATIENTS, IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY THEM.
If only you would listen !
The reason no one has picked us up is likely because until we can demonstrate we know how to select the right cohort of patients, we have an expensive drug with no way of accurately assigning patients.
These are not excuses, these are the scientific facts and that’s why the company are producing further trials.
Sadly you seem to have no interest in this truth.
“If only we’d gone back to COPD it would be complete now”
If only people would read the science and understand trials they wouldn’t make these remarks
Go and look at
Verona Pharma Ensifentrine or
Sanofi Dupixent.
Take a good look at the number of trials and particularly the patient trial size, and the cost of running them.
2 to 3 times the size of our Sprinter trial.
Then compare it to our COPD p2 that’s P2 not a P3 of 109 patients.
Then perhaps you will realise how wrong your comments are, but quite honestly I doubt it.