Member Info for wcotter17

Forgive me if this subject has already been addressed at an earlier time.

Nevertheless, my question is are ADCs, (antibody-drug conjugates, a potential threat to Avacta’s Pre|CISION platform?

The following snippet was taken from an article in the Business section of The Economist on 21 September 2023 under the headline, ‘Big pharma can’t get enough of one class of cancer drugs’.

“ADCs aren’t new. The first was approved in 2000 for types of leukaemia. They act like guided biological missiles: a payload of toxic chemotherapy is carried by antibodies able to seek out cancer cells directly. Because they bypass normal tissue and go straight for their targets, they let patients receive higher doses that would otherwise cause too much collateral damage”.

https://www.economist.com/business/2023/09/21/big-pharma-cant-get-enough-of-one-class-of-cancer-drugs

RD, I took you up on your prompting to read about JUSTIA patents in regard to FAP-activated proteasome inhibitors for treating solid tumours.

https://patents.justia.com/patent/11065339

As we glean, Avacta has actively sought to license its proprietary platforms in a range of therapeutic areas. In particular, and in conjunction with Tufts University, they have exclusive licensee agreements with Bach/Trustees of Tufts College and established internationally registered patents for both ‘FAP-Activated Therapeutic Agents and uses related thereto, as well as, ‘FAP-Activated Proteasome Inhibitors for Treating Solid Tumors’.

I couldn’t help noticing under the heading, ‘GOVERNMENT SUPPORT’, that this ‘invention’ was made with government support under grant CA156930 awarded by the National Institutes of Health. The government has certain rights in the invention.

This ‘invention’ of course refers to Avacta/Tufts ground-breaking co-invention, which incorporates novel linker chemistry designed by Tufts to release, only in the tumour, the active forms of highly potent small molecule drugs that are activators of innate immunity.

My two points are thus: Firstly, has anyone got a clue as to what is the extent and/or significance of the US government’s rights in the invention? Secondly, given China’s flagrant disregard for fair play concerning respecting of international patents, it remains a concern as to how they may commandeer and exploit this highly lucrative invention.

I had no idea my original simplistic enquiry would end up in a quantum leap into new realms of virological hyperspace.

Well done, all your contributing posts were enormously informative and I for one have gleaned a massive amount of insight from your highly instructive biological reagent testing responses.

Ndn71, CO et al, I stand humbly corrected on this matter as to whether Affimers are used in conjunction with the pre|CISION platform. Thank you for correcting me.

However, as you’ll no doubt be aware of an extract (see below) from the Avacta website, it mentions the role of Affimers in connection with the futuristic TMAC programme. Perhaps this may have partly contributed to my conflated understanding of the role of Affimers and pre|CISION.

“Tumour microenvironment activated drug conjugates (TMAC®)
Incorporating pre|CISION™ technology in the linker of Affimer-drug conjugates ensures localised, extracellular release of a chemotoxin payload in the tumour microenvironment. This mechanism overcomes the need to target an internalising cancer marker as with conventional drug conjugates allowing the Affimer® to be selected to target an immune checkpoint. Thus, the innate immune response to the chemotoxin is supported by the Affimer® immune checkpoint blockade in this novel class of checkpoint targeting tumour microenvironment activated drug conjugates – TMAC®.”

I welcome your feedback.

Ndn71, with respect, I think you'll find that the Affimer® plays an intrinsic part of the pre|CISION platform. By the way, I understand very well your reference to the Tufts University contribution in regard to the detection of FAP and the cleaving technology, which of course is the central role of the pre|CISION platform.

Ophidian, thanks for your welcome explanation. However, whilst it helps somewhat in throwing more light on the subject, I am still not totally ‘au fait’ with the science details involved here.

For instance, am I right in assuming that you are suggesting that the Affimer’s role in regard to the detection of an omicron virus infection is solely concerned with specificity, i.e., that it’s a specific variety of Covid-19 for certain but it’s the antibody’s role to determine sensitivity to the omicron virus itself?

In effect, I am now even more confused about the overall role of the Affimer itself. Why did Avacta incorporate the role of an antibody in the first place as surely everything about Affimers says they are far superior to and will eventually replace the use of antibodies altogether? Whilst on this subject, although I have asked Avacta directly by email moons ago, I have never been given an explanation by them as to exactly what the role of the Affimer® is in conjunction with the pre|CISIONTM platform.

Not being a practising virologist, I am at a loss to properly understand and evaluate the implications of AL’s recent RNS concerning the potential limitations in regard to reduced sensitivities of Avacta’s and possibly all other LFT providers in detecting the Omicron variant.

As we know, in his latest RNS he contends that Avacta’s data “… show that the Affimer® reagent in the AffiDX® test detects the Omicron variant with the same sensitivity as the Delta variant”. He goes on to pronounce that it is indeed “… the performance of the antibody, with which the Affimer® is paired in the test, that has been affected by the additional Omicron mutations”.

Perhaps those amongst us who are better versed in the finer arts of virology can throw some light on my consternation with the perceived contradiction with his affirmations (excuse the pun). If the Affimer itself is apparently unaffected in terms of its sensitivity to the omicron variant, what has that got anything to do with the supposed degraded performance of the antibody?

rxdav, I'm glad you got it. No malevolence intended so I won't carp on any further.

RXDAV, your explanation sounds a bit tongue-in-cheek 'fishy' to me and unlikely to convey what you actually meant!!!

Well said doze and Van-Tam has now earned his "well-deserved" 'gong' (not)
for touting the party line and will continue on to bamboozle the unsuspecting great unwashed masses.

Craiga24, whilst some of what you contend in regard to PCR testing may well be correct, your pronouncement is, similar to those you hold to account, very selective and falls way short of the whole story/truth of the matter.

For instance, you imply that the PCR test has been removed from the list of tests under emergency use authorization because the demand for it has decreased with the authorization of other diagnostic tests. You fail to mention anything about the exorbitant cost, the lengthy delay in turning around an actual result, the inability of our government to provide anywhere near the capacity required and most damning the fact that a PCR test is simply not fit for its purpose, i.e., being able to confirm if you are currently infectious or not with Covid-19.

Hopefully, the government’s game will soon be up and the truth will be out about the shameful misappropriation of our monies expended on totally inappropriate Chinese LFT takeaways for over two years already amounting to many billions of GBP!!!

Hear, hear to MullaneyJ13.

Marik, you have stated in your post that, "The UK Gov has blocked ALL sales in the UK," but according to Avacta's latest RNS, the AffiDX® SARS-CoV-2 antigen lateral flow test has received a CE mark for use as a consumer self-test in the UK and EU.
Please advise which of the apparently contrary statements are true or false?

GTW, do you have a reference for the study you say has just been published?

According to the Express newspaper – Friday 17 December 2021 edition:

'Covid breakthrough: Huge boost as lateral flow tests DO pick up Omicron, study finds'

Dr Jenny Harries, HSA chief executive, said: "Our data shows that LFTs are similarly able to detect Covid-19 in individuals who have been exposed to Omicron as in those exposed to previous variants. This is very encouraging.

Dr Jenny Harries, HSA Government stooge, (see above), I presume she is referring to their own now defunct and discredited Chinese Innova LFT, i.e., the NHS’ rebranded Innova LFT, which we all know was recently unbelievably granted exceptional use authorisation!

REALLY!!! Where is the scientific proof???

As some or all of you may already be aware, the UK Government are giving away the LFT cited below for FREE as part of the DHSC deployment under the guise of the NHS Test and Trace programme.

After taking the nasal swab as directed, you are advised as follows: “Wait 15 minutes before you read your result. Read the result when the timer reaches 15-30 minutes. Do not read after 30 minutes.”

Please can someone with the relevant knowledge care to comment on this LFT test and its likely sensitivity and specificity ratings. FYI, I understand that FDA approval was granted to ACON in November 2020.

In particular, one wonders where does all this leave the sale and rollout of Avacta's UK Sovereign AffiDX® SARS-CoV-2 antigen lateral flow test???

"ACON Flowflex

Supply of this device is only permitted as part of the DHSC deployment under the NHS Test and Trace programme.

ACON? Flowflex [TM] SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test (Self-Testing)

Manufacturer
ACON Biotech (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd.
No.210 Zhenzhong Road, West Lake District,
Hangzhou, P.R. China, 310030

Website: www.aconbio.com
Email: COVID19selftest@aconlab.com.cn

0123
EC REP

MedNet GmbH
Borkstrasse 10
48163 Muenster, Germany"

Today I received a call from my hospital, where I am booked in to have a ‘Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate’, (HoLEP), operation. Aside from the myriad blood tests, urine samples, swabs et cetera to exclude MRSA and the like. I was also advised that three days prior to my procedure, I would additionally be required to swab myself to eliminate any possible COVID-19 infection.

On enquiring further about this requirement, I was informed it would be a PCR test, which could be sent to me to self-administer at home providing I book an appointment with a nominated courier service the day before to come the next day before noon to collect the sample. If for whatever reason they failed to show up, I would have to take it to the nearest ‘Priority’ labelled Royal Mail post-box. If all that failed, my operation could be cancelled altogether.

As we all know by now, this government's ‘Gold Standard’ COVID-19 PCR Test is totally unfit for its purpose as a meaningful test for detecting Covid-19 infectiousness. By this I mean, if the result was 'positive' it would not necessarily mean I was currently capable of passing on COVID to anyone else, because it’s primarily a test to detect genetic material from a specific organism, such as a virus. The PCR test detects the presence of virus particles at the time of the test. However, the test could also detect fragments of the virus in your body even after you are no longer infected, i.e., you may have acquired COVID-19 up to six months or even longer beforehand but you may no longer be infectious.

Hence the reason why Avacta’s AffiDX® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Lateral Flow Test is far superior to PCR and so much more exacting for the job at hand. Apart from that, it costs a fraction of a PCR test, saves days of processing time to obtain a result and there is no need to pay for expensive courier services to shuttle the sample and results endlessly back and forth. Not to mention the potential for my procedure to be erroneously cancelled!

Does anybody wish to contest my logic?

before some of you get your knickers in a twist, I’ll declare up front that I am an ardent follower of Avacta and I’m still invested up to the hilt personally and onboard for the long-term ride.

In last weekend’s Sunday Times (August 22, 2021), there was an interesting article entitled, ‘Personalised Drug Stops Spread of Prostate Cancer'. Apparently, there is a new wave of drugs, called PARP inhibitors, which exploit a weakness in cancer cells’ defences to kill a tumour without harming healthy tissue.

Personalised precision medicines enable doctors to target cancers according to the patient's genetic makeup, rather than the “one-size-fits-all” approach of chemotherapy and hormone therapy.

These inhibitors are targeted therapies — they target cancer cells and have less effect on healthy cells than traditional chemotherapy. It appears the Olaparib treatment trial was particularly effective for men who are genetically predisposed to develop prostate cancer due to a mutated BRCA gene. (See also trial results published recently in The Lancet Oncology Journal, published: August 10, 2021 – Talazoparib monotherapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with DNA repair alterations (TALAPRO-1): an open-label, phase 2 trial - Studies leader was Professor Johann S de Brono).
Furthermore, The Sunday Times article implied it also worked for men with ten other DNA mutations, stopping in some cases tumour growth completely.

Assuming we can conclude from this Sunday Times article that only men with a genetic predisposition would benefit from this innovative personalised medicinal approach, we can equally also assume that there are a lot of other men with prostate cancer who would not.

What I mean to say is there is undoubtedly more than one way to skin this particular cat. Employing CRISPR technology is another approach that springs to mind and one which will likely radically change the world.

For those more pharmaceutically minded, I would be most grateful for their input on this interesting conundrum. My personal belief is that each new discovery, including Avacta’s two proprietary platforms, Affimer® biotherapeutics and pre|CISION™ tumour targeted chemotherapy are let’s just say merely ‘horses for courses’ rather than simply competing threats.

I’ve just managed to speak with Cytiva’s Product Manager, Lee Jenkins, who is responsible for their relationship with Avacta Group plc.

I looked in today on Cytiva’s virtual diagnostics event and spoke with a helpful representative, who referred me directly to the gentleman mentioned above.

Despite my taking the opportunity to sing the praises of Avacta’s Affimer technology and their superiority in delivering significant improvements over conventional antibody biomarker and drug target discovery approaches, he was unable to disclose anything useful mainly due to reasons of commercial sensitivities.

Whilst it was not much of a surprise to me, I find his response very frustrating particularly as he did confirm he was aware of the FDA’s Class A recall moves to shutdown Innova in the US and the billions of GBP the UK Government have invested in Innova's totally inferior product.

I guess the only significant discovery was along the lines that Cytiva does not appear to develop their own proprietary LFD but where necessary they have the wherewithal to appropriate it from wherever. Apart from being a BIG PHARMA presence, I wonder what it is exactly they would bring to the party. Manufacturing/marketing capability perhaps but what else?

I refer those interested to an interesting article in this weekend’s Sunday Times entitled, ‘Covid detector gadget can stiff out virus in crowded room in 15 minutes’. (p3 under NEWS heading)

Whilst it appears that this British (Roboscientific) scientist’s development ceiling-mounted Covid alarm detector system can detect whether someone in a room is infected with the coronavirus in as little as 15 minutes, the final trials to authenticate the system are unlikely to be completed before the end of this year.

I guess the question will be is it an outright threat/competitor to LFTs or merely a further adjunct to the track and trace approach to control/eliminate the rampant spread of the virus?

1. What is the cost of a box of 25 tests?
2. How would you go about contacting your local Avacta distributor?