Become a Member

“This Tiny, Unknown Biotech is About to Unleash Its ‘Holy Grail’ Drug”

Biotech Supertrader teases that "This May be the Most Radical Advance in Medicine in the Last 100 Years"

By Travis Johnson, Stock Gumshoe, January 8, 2014

Robert Morris is helming a biotech-focused stock newsletter that’s called Biotech Supertrader (modesty has no place in the world of newsletter promotions, of course), and I’ve never covered this letter before so I thought I ought to have a look at the latest teaser we’ve been asked about.

Morris, incidentally, has been featured in our pages before — but that was back when he was editor of China Stock Insider at the same publisher. That letter, like almost all China-focused investment newsletters, seems to have disappeared quietly into that good night … which probably tells you that it’s time to invest in China again, since the newsletter publishers are ignoring the Middle Kingdom and rushing out their pitches about biotech and tech stocks. At the time, Morris was teasing NQ Mobile (NQ), which has turned out to be pretty good if you bought it down there in the $6-8 neighborhood (though it’s been a wild ride).

So now what’s he pitching for his Biotech Supertrader?

Well, the destruction of “Man’s deadliest disease”, of course. Here’s how the teaser gets our attention:

“This Tiny, Unknown Biotech is About to Unleash Its ‘Holy Grail’ Drug on Man’s Deadliest Disease

“Their ‘Guided Missile Approach’ Could Save Thousands of Lives Each Year

“It’s about to become the most talked about advancement in cancer treatment in our lifetimes and you can lock in a life-transforming fortune if you act quickly….

“I’m urging my subscribers to load up on this stock NOW….

“I’ve just uncovered a tiny, unknown biotechnology company with a new cancer drug in phase 3 clinical trials which is showing remarkable success at treating several types of cancer.

“Their scientists have found an innovative approach to cancer care which involves a breakthrough in treatment. It goes deep inside the inner workings of our cells.

“Plus, this medicine looks to be many times more effective and with fewer side effects than the chemo, radiation, and drug therapies currently available.”

If there’s one thing that investors know can make them rich and make them feel good about themselves and the world, it’s a cure for cancer — we’ve seen that effective cancer treatments can and do (occasionally) turn little biotech stocks into gigantic successes, so the dream lives on that you’re going to catch one of these lottery tickets and own the next Genentech. Will we be so lucky? Well, let’s see which one he’s pitching:

“When this drug wins FDA approval – which I believe it will – this small company’s $4.16 stock price will go straight to the moon.

“And the market for this drug is absolutely huge!

“You see, this small biotech is targeting its new drug, let’s call it ‘drug S’, at cancers of the blood and bone marrow. And it is already in very promising phase 3 trials for these two types of cancer.

“But here’s where it gets really interesting. It looks like the drug this company is developing will also work on other types of cancer!

“There are positive signs it works on Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) too. There are 1.1 million people with this type of malignancy. Just in the United States alone there are over 300,000 patients with this disease according to The American Cancer Society. Each desperate for a cure.

“Plus it looks like ‘drug S’ may turn out to be an effective treatment for ovarian Cancer. There are more than 204,000 new cases of ovarian cancer diagnosed worldwide each year with 22,280 of these in the United States according to the National Cancer Institute estimates.”

So … who is it? Thinkolator sez this is Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals (CYCC)

Cyclacel is indeed a little biotech around $4 (it closed at $4.35 yesterday), with a market capitalization of only about $80 million — so be careful, we’re a big enough group here that if just a small percentage of Stock Gumshoe readers got enthused about this stock it could drive the shares up, less than a million dollars worth of shares trade each day (Biotech Supertrader says they limited their readership to 750 people — I don’t know if that’s still their cap or if they’ve hit it, but we’ll have more folks than that reading this free article).

And like many biotech stocks, it’s got some impressive scientists and it’s been losing money for a long time as they’ve been searching for a viable drug (their current lead drug also was a big focus of theirs back when it was in Phase 1 trials five or more years ago, so that’s a good reminder of the time these things take, it’s just starting Phase 3 trials now). It looks like they must have gone public in 2004, when they were about eight years old, and a quick scan of ten years of their financials over at Morningstar indicates that they’ve never generated more than a token amount of revenue (meaning, they’ve probably had some research collaboration payments or partnership funding, but never got a product to market), and have accumulated more than $250 million in losses to date. And had two reverse splits to keep the price from sinking far into penny territory.

So that’s not unusual, but it means that — as with all developmental-stage biotechs — it’s not about the financials or the fundamentals, it’s about what’s going to happen in their clinical trials and whether things are going well enough that they can continue to finance the trials … which get much more expensive as you progress through Phase 2 and Phase 3.

Are you getting our free Daily Update
"reveal" emails? If not,
just click here...


All I know about them so far is that they say they’ve got enough cash to get through enrollment in their key Phase 3 study for “drug S” (which is sapacitabine) as of September when they last updated their investor presentation, but I know nothing about the science or the competing cancer drugs that are out there or how fabulous this particular one might be, so I asked our favorite medical writer, Doc Gumshoe (who, yes, is not a doctor) to check them out quickly and chime in. Here’s what he could share after looking into them for a few minutes (he’s just looking at the medical stuff, not so much the “investor presentations”):

    Cyclacel’s Prospects

    Cyclacel has three drugs in development at this time, and is involved in eight clinical trials with these drugs, not including two clinical trials that have been terminated. Their top contender is sapacitabine which targets the division of cancer cells. If you can prevent cancer cells from dividing and reproducing, you have the cancer whipped, so targeting cancer cell division (or mitosis, which is the technical term) is a highly promising avenue for treating cancer. However, we need to take note of the fact that sapacitabine is one of a large number of drugs that propose to fight cancer by this method.

    At present, all eight of Cyclacel’s clinical trials involve sapacitabine. Of these, at least one has been completed – a Phase 1 study of the safety and pharmacology of the drug. Four others are current, with no information about results. These are likely Phase 1 or small Phase 2 studies, to assess safety, determine what a correct dose might be, and evaluate whether the drug does what it’s supposed to do in human subjects with the target diseases, which in this case include acute myeloid leukemia (AML), cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and some advanced solid tumors. Prior to the clinical trials, sapacitabine has demonstrated impressive results in delaying the spread of metastatic liver cancers in mice.

    From what I can gather from public sources (i.e., the NIH Clinical Trials Registry), there is one Phase 3 trial, which started recruiting patients in February of 2013 and is expected to be completed in late 2015. The trial is in elderly patients with AML, and compares alternating cycles of sapacitabine and decitabine with decitabine alone. Decitabine (Dacogen) is FDA-approved for treating AML and also targets cancer cells’ replication by attacking their DNA.

    It is possible that the Phase 3 trial by itself could lead to FDA approval for sapacitabine, depending on the strength of the results. However, that trial would not get the drug approved for use as monotherapy, since it is not being investigated as monotherapy. My guess is that Cyclacel is planning more trials of sapacitabine as monotherapy, perhaps in younger patients. And my further guess is that FDA approval is still quite a long way off.

    Sapacitabine is also in a Phase 3 trial with cyclophosphamide and rituximab for the treatment of relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Cyclophosphamide (marketed under several trade names) is a well-established chemotherapy agent used in a number of cancers, and has led to remission in many cases; however, it is associated with truly harrowing adverse effects. Rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech) is used not only in cancers but in some autoimmune diseases. And sapacitabine is also being studied in patients with previously-treated non-small-cell lung cancers.

    Although the piece from Biotech Supertrader said that the drug – identified as “drug S” –is also a promising treatment for ovarian cancer, I find no clue that it is being studied in such patients. [ed note: that’s because that “promise” is in the lab still, not in people — they had a press release about this in the Fall, “75% of Ovarian Cancer Patient Samples Highly Sensitive to Sapacitabine”, not studied in patients but on patient samples]

    Cyclacel has two other drugs in development: selicilib and a drug designated as CYC116. One selicilib study has been terminated, and in a second Phase 1 study, selicilib is used with sapacitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors. Remember, however, that Phase 1 studies are many rungs of the ladder below what’s needed to gain FDA approval.

    CYC116 is an aurora kinase inhibitor, meaning that it blocks the action of an intracellular enzyme that facilitates cancer cell mitosis. This is a promising avenue of cancer treatment, however, the traffic on this avenue is fairly heavy, and includes several other classes of drugs including tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and taxol based agents such as paclitaxel (Taxol, Bristol Myers Squibb); docetaxel (Taxotere, Sanofi-Aventis), Abraxane (a newer formulation of paclitaxel from Celgene) and others.

    CYC116 supposedly also inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which induces the growth of blood vessels that nourish cancer cells. Inhibiting VEGF is a well-established means of combating cancer, and CYC116 could hardly be characterized as a radically new departure in cancer treatment.

    The one trial involving this agent has been terminated. That, of course, does not mean that development of CYC116 stops dead in its tracks – there are many reasons why a trial can be terminated, and ours is not to speculate without more information.

    Beyond those three drugs, it’s hard to guess what Cyclacel may have up its corporate sleeve. It is certainly true that a successful cancer drug – even if only moderately successful– can be transformational for the biotech that develops the drug. But the drugs that Cyclacel has under development do not appear to this skeptical observer to be radically new departures in cancer treatment.

    It’s important to remember, when trying to estimate the likelihood of a single drug demonstrating sufficient efficacy and safety to gain FDA approval and market share, that the competitive field is vast. As I mentioned earlier, Cyclacel has a total of 8 clinical trials in process at this time.

    For the sake of perspective, it’s worth knowing that at present there are 41,445 cancer trials being conducted. So those are the odds.

So there you have it — it’s almost impossible to find a development-stage biotech whose financials look great or that makes your heart go pit-a-pat over their valuation, especially in a biotech bull market like we’ve seen over the past year or so, and Cyclacel doesn’t jump out as spectacular on that front either, not unless you’re a big believer in the promise of their specific drug. They’re a small stock and they don’t get much attention, other than from the analysts who probably helped them sell shares in secondary offerings in recent years, and there aren’t any major “skin in the game” insiders as far as I can tell (the CEO owns $1 million worth of shares, but he gets paid more than that every year), and there’s only one really focused owner on the institutional side that seems to have any kind of biotech focus (Eastern Capital owns about 7% of the shares, roughly $5 million worth … don’t know much about them).

So I don’t see a lot to make them stand out other than Robert Morris’ apparent enthusiasm for the shares (which certainly goes over the top, he calls his special report “The End of Cancer Worries Forever“), and I don’t know enough about the science to be a believer (though, to be fair, I almost never speculate on developmental biotechs because they’re so hit-driven and I’m not smart enough to be a hit-picker in the sector). It is at least encouraging that they are enrolling patients for Phase 3, and that they probably won’t have to raise more money before they have some indication of how the trial is going, but sometime in the next year or two they’re probably going to have to either get good results from this trial that let them raise cash at a good price, or have promising enough results that some big pharma company wants to jump in and help fund development of “drug S” (or just buy up the whole company, as happens with some regularity when a little biotech gets promising results).

Oh, and they are presenting at an investor conference next week, so maybe they’ll have something interesting to share then. As you can tell, this one doesn’t jump into my cup of tea … but these kinds of stocks almost never do. Sound interesting to you? Interested in the science or the lottery-ticket possibilities of $80-million developmental biotechs? Have any experience with Robert Morris or know whether or not we should consider him a biotech savant? Let us know with a comment below.

Irregulars Quick Take

Paid members get a quick summary of the stocks teased and our thoughts here. Join as a Stock Gumshoe Irregular today (already a member? Log in)
guest

12345

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

2.7K Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
karma swim swami
January 8, 2014 8:37 am

Cyclacel’s drug candidates are, mechanistically, decidedly “me too.” I see nothing particularly novel about any of its therapies, and, based on papers that they have published that I have read, their prospective agents are not exactly evoking barnstorming results. Sapacitabine will probably get approved, but it will not be pushing back the frontiers of oncology at all.

Douglas
Guest
February 4, 2014 5:54 pm

Sounds like a very interesting stock.

Add a Topic
5971
professorredbag
January 8, 2014 9:06 am

One should look at Provectus Biopharma (PVCT) if one wants a real gamechanger, investment-wise and medically. My first thought was the tease was for this company. It should have been.

👍 1
karmaswimswami
January 8, 2014 2:10 pm

To William Tweedie: I reviewed Provectus. It went up by more than 100 per cent last month, but I cannot see on what basis. Its main drug candidate is the vital dye rose bengal. Thus far no mechanism by which it may help various tumors, including melanoma, has been reasonably postulated. There has been no hypothesizing even as to why a “bystander” effect may occur in melanoma. It has made it through phase I, which is no surprise. As I read the phase II data, I am troubled that no sham intralesional melanoma injections were done. How they will ever be able to patent a product that has been in extensive common use for 50 years troubles me also. This one strokes me as rather extraordinarlly speculative. There is one thing all modalities have in common for melanoma: they all fail. That includes very sophisticated iummnotherapy, replicative antimetabolites, and ablative interventions. It metastasizes like mad. I have great doubts rose bengal will miraculously succeed where everything else fails.

professorredbag
January 9, 2014 3:49 am
Reply to  karmaswimswami

I don’t believe in miracles but beneficial accidents do happen (possibly penicillin being the most well-known). An article mid-2013 in the NEJM or similar well respected publication (can’t recall at the moment, there have been many since such as in Oct issue of Cancer magazine) described how the drug was administered to solid cancer induced mice and the cancer disappeared and human compassionate cases (non FDA controlled) since with the same results. The FDA will publish the minutes of a special (type C) meeting with Provectus on the 15th wherein it is expected they will outline the options to approval – NDA, Fast track, etc. Melanoma is but one unmet medical need for which the drug will be trialed.
A good source of info is Dominic Rodrigues’ Instablog http://tinyurl.com/kyb4ds7 wherein he cites http://tinyurl.com/opvsntk & http://tinyurl.com/nsyh3nl
There is still a lot of opinion. Researching the scientific articles which have focused on PVCT will reveal the facts of the medical science to date. The patent issue revolves around their prorietary technology. I have written to the company for clarification but it seems to me with such a potentially powerful drug and with its well respected management, they would not be proceeding without full protection.
“…no knowledgeable or material pushback on the drugs’ clinical value propositions. It’s now time to move on.”
Investment wise, this is as good an opportunity as it gets in my naive opinion. I’ve been a shareholder since the stock was under a dollar. Many analysts will soon be covering the company and much higher prices than yesterday’s close are predicted ($10-$30) before a take-over/buy-out occurs.

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3397
👍 1
karmaswimswami
January 9, 2014 2:14 pm

Hi: The article you are referring to appeared online in PLoS One, and pertained to a murine model of the disease. I researched Provectus further. It does seem they have a secure patent position on 10% w/v Rose Bengal solution. But I still have concerns, Mr Tweedie. The proposed mechanism of action is quasi-pyroptotic. The solution is locally instilled into cutaneous lesions. It is said to be taken up by cells, transported to lysosomes and lead to cell rupture, and the cell rupture is surmised to lead to an immune anti-melanoma response. There are problems with this theory, I feel. One, injection of melanoma lysates into animals or humans does not evoke a meaningful anti-melanoma response. Second, a critical trial for this agent in human melanoma was completed in 2007. No long term report on outcomes of those patients have appeared. Why is that?, I wonder. Third, if you review photos from their recentest human melanoma trial poster presentation, I have to say there is a horror-show quality to them: vesication, cellulitis at sites of local infections. My fear is that this will do nothing but promote metastases in addition to causing bad scarring. The stock may yet go up on speculative fervor and takeover speculation, but I certainly would be prepared to get out of it. The links you provided are mostly to commentaries that provide little data and speak mostly of the balmy conversations the author had with company management, and i find little to go on in them. Please be careful.

Add a Topic
5971
William
January 9, 2014 6:24 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Pleased that I have evoked further research. Keep it up.
Of course, I’m always prepared to sell a stock. I, like most, am in the market to make a profit. It’s also pleasing when an investment is in a company with the potential to benefit mankind in a truly meaningful way but as a researcher I know to keep the emotion of one out of decisions in the other. Cheers.

Add a Topic
5971
rugony
rugony
January 8, 2014 9:07 am

Dear biotech friends, please have a look at: http://www.bbbiotech.ch
super portfolio with a great discount, super managment, dividende ok, buy back progr.
BB BIOTECH (SIX), 1/8/2014 2:33 PM
Last:
CHF 145.70 Change: CHF +0.70 Volume: 7,880
Percent Change: +0.48 % Market cap: 1.73 bn
NAV: CHF 191.70 (Close 1/7/2014)

Solyom
Member
Solyom
January 8, 2014 9:09 am

If CYCC gets above 4.50 per share in the next week, I predict it will be in a bullish trend of 3 months or more. Stop 4.10 for now.

joshsorensen
January 8, 2014 1:54 pm
Reply to  Solyom

It took a nice jump once it crossed $4.50 today.

Solyom
Member
Solyom
January 8, 2014 9:20 am

Right now SIX is in a consolidation phase If it got above 38 it might fulfill all of my criterion for a buy. For a stock in a long term bullish trend I usually am in 10% to late and out 10% also to late but capture the 80% in between. For PVCT I was in at 1 present stop is a 1.9. But at this moment I fulfills only 3 out of 4 of my criterion. if in a week closing price gets above 2.5 it will fulfill all four.

solyom (Osprey in Hungarian)

Add a Topic
5971
finder0522
finder0522
January 8, 2014 10:17 am

The Irregular’s Take lists the stock as “CCYC” In reality it is “CYCC” – Must have been a pre-coffee entry 🙂

Add a Topic
5971
👍 4
👍 21793
Don Coon
Member
January 8, 2014 11:14 am

It could be CYTR they have a new drug that may be game changing in the cancer field.

Add a Topic
3397
Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
January 8, 2014 11:15 am

Yahoo offers me Cyclacel Pharmaceutical cycc @ 4.46 and cyccp @ 9.08. Wheres the difference?

👍 21793
Jo McIntyre
January 8, 2014 2:02 pm

BB Biotech is trading on a number of European stock exchanges including its home exchange in Switzerland, but I can’t find an American stock market listing for the company.
http://www.bbbiotech.ch/en/bb-biotech/investor-relations/

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
5971
Bill O'Connell
Bill O'Connell
January 8, 2014 3:14 pm

A lesser know biotech that should be on everyone’s radr…SGMO. Their zinc finger study is progressing and has the potential. to be a game changer in HIV and several cancers.

Add a Topic
560
Add a Topic
5153
karmaswimswami
January 8, 2014 5:49 pm
Reply to  Bill O'Connell

Bill: I also think they are clever. The Zn-finger approach is to suppress T-lymphocyte expression of CCR5, the docking protein by which HIV enters the cell. But the company that may have a cleverer approach to that may be Calimmune. They are also going after CCR5, but by RNA silencing using a ddRNAi vector that could last rather a long time with one does. Sangamo is very smart, don’t get me wrong, but I think Calimmune may be cleverer, if not so well known. The ultimate cure for HIV would be stem cell transplantation with cells lacking CCR5, a la the Berlin patient. As you may know, CCR5-deficient people are HIV “elite controllers.”

Add a Topic
5153
Add a Topic
4030
Add a Topic
4030
Booya
Guest
Booya
March 5, 2014 10:14 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

SGMO Trading at $23.75ish off a $19.61 close on the news below.

Sangamo BioSciences announced the publication in the New England Journal of
Medicine of the first clinical study of its proprietary zinc finger nuclease, or
ZFN,-based genome editing technology in humans. Data from the study, carried out
in HIV-positive subjects, demonstrate that the T-cell genome can be safely
engineered to mimic a naturally occurring mutation that provides resistance to
HIV infection. ZFN-modified T-cells are well tolerated when reinfused and
treatment is associated with decreased viral loads, or VLs, in several subjects
who were taken off their antiretroviral therapy, or ART, including one whose
viral load became undetectable. The study demonstrates the feasibility of this
novel genome editing approach to achieve functional control of HIV.

Add a Topic
1048
Add a Topic
560
Add a Topic
5153
Victor Sperandeo
Guest
Victor Sperandeo
January 8, 2014 3:46 pm

Don’t listen to karmaswimswami and William Tweedie, do your own homework!

“me too drug”? Tell that to the deadly disease RMDS and AML cancer patients who are living longer on sapa, some of them are alive for 2-3 years already – they keep taking sapa and they keep living.

AML phase 3 is ongoing and RMDS ph.2 final data out in December
On December 9, 2013 Cyclacel reported ph 2 RMDS results
The median overall survival for all three arms is approximately 8.6 months.
Ten patients (approximately 16%) are still alive.

“We are very interested in novel treatment options for MDS patients following failure of front-line therapies. The survival data with sapacitabine in this population confirm our previous experience with the drug,” said Hagop Kantarjian, M.D., Chairman & Professor, Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and principal investigator for the study. “Median survival for patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk MDS following treatment failures of hypomethylating agents with investigational agents is 4.3 to 5.6 months and with best supportive care 4.1 months. We urgently need new therapeutics for these patients with the potential of controlling the disease and offering high quality of life.”

And I might add with best supportive care in two years something like 99% would be dead.

Well, Dr Hagop Kantarjian is a leading authority on blood cancers.
Who is karmaswimswami?

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
570
Add a Topic
3397
karmaswimswami
January 8, 2014 3:47 pm

In the biotech pharma world, I have to say I am just shocked that the FDA has approved another SGLT-2 inhibitor, a “flozin,” today. These drugs work by poisoning the glucose/sodium co-transporter in the renal tubule and causing glucose to spill in the urine. That the FDA would approve such a strategy for managing diabetes is disturbing. These drugs have no long-term safety record, and there is every reason to fear that they will hasten renal damage from diabetes, lead to urinary tract infections, and promote tumors of the urinary system. The drug approved today is by Astra Zeneca. It will never attain blockbuster status, and I predict this whole class of drugs will be yanked in 5-7 years on safety concerns.

Add a Topic
3022
Add a Topic
3022
Add a Topic
4154
karmaswimswami
January 8, 2014 4:26 pm

Yes, Victor Sperandeo, I know Kantarjian quite well. And there is no reason for you to go all ad hominem, At best, sapacitabine is extending survival by only 4 months. It cures no one. It has extraordinary toxicity. It is a nucleoside analog, and these are a dime a dozen. Quizartinib and midostaurin are far more promising for elderly AML patients. In AML patients treated with sapacitabine, nearly 10 per cent of them had deaths attributable to the drug! The 2013 MDS study reported only a 19 per cent response rate to sapacitabine. A “game changer”? No, It is certainly not. It is just one more nucleoside analog, not in any sort of novel class or working by a novel mechanism. In short, a “me too.” Facts are pesky things, Victor Sperandeo.

Add a Topic
899
truthseeker
Guest
truthseeker
January 8, 2014 9:42 pm

Karmaswami, you have a source for your assertion that sapacitabine has extraordinary toxiicity? And how do you account for all of the extended lives reported in the studies that exceed “four months”? Besides, what is four more months of life worth?

Victor Sperandeo
Guest
Victor Sperandeo
January 8, 2014 9:54 pm

Hi, karmaswimswami. Sorry for the ad hominem. Very good that you have a medical background and know Dr. Kantarjian quite well – your time would be much better spent discussing the medical side of sapacitabine with him, rather than with me. My background is in applied mathematics and statistics, rather than medicine, but it is very useful in spotting shortcuts and shenanigans those biotech companies use in clinical trials.

The most important thing is that you think that despite all the shortcomings, sapacitabine is likely to be approved. It is not a cure for cancer, but a cure is not coming in the foreseeable future. So yes, if “game changer” is defined as a cure, it is not a game changer.
It is also not potent enough as a single agent and has to be administered in combination therapy with decitabine in Seamless. But if it is likely to be approved, all of this does not matter, what matters is the risk/reward is favorable at current market cap. I did my homework and I am long the stock.

It has a unique mechanism of action among nucleoside analogues, so not a “me too” detailed for example, here http://www.cyclacel.com/pdf/cyclacel_sapacitabine_1109.pdf

The mechanism of action and the design of the clinical trial makes sense. That’s also very important. As of course is SPA with FDA.

You mention other nucleoside analogues Quizartinib (ph2) and midostaurin (ph3). I looked them up. Their approval is doubtful, especially for the first one that uses response rate, not overall survival. No SPA too for either of them. But even if approved, it would be only for FLT3+ positive because that is the subset in the clinical trial, so not a competitive threat to CYCC it seems.

Regarding “deaths attributable to the drug” – this would surely come up again and again, so need to address this.
Here is the full quote:
“Seven deaths were thought to be probably or possibly related to sapacitabine treatment”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23075701

That is not quite as strong as “deaths attributable to the drug”, right?
At least some of them could be of an unknown or undeterminable cause, for example.

Anyway, this was from 2007-2009 study and both the Data Safety Monitoring Board and the FDA had that info and still Phase 3 trial started under an SPA.

Regarding “extraordinary toxicity”. Where is this coming from? The info I have is the drug is orally administrated and well tolerated. Dose-Limiting toxicity was established in Phase 1 as 375mg dose causing gastrointestinal side effects and the dose in Phase 3 trial is below the DLT.

Now the best part
“At best, sapacitabine is extending survival by only 4 months.”

Should be

“Sapacitabine extends median overall survival by at least 4 months.”

Median is just median – half of patients is above the median, half below.
But that’s not the whole story. The whole story is pictured by the Kaplan-Mayer
overall survival curve with a fat tail on the right hand side.
Some patients are living very long and still living and for them sapacitabine becomes a maintenance therapy – that’s where the game change is. Which other nucleoside analogue can be a maintenance therapy for 2-3 years? – almost all of them are too toxic for that, but sapacitabine is not!

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
3022
karmaswimswami
January 9, 2014 2:40 pm

Trader Vic:
Thank you for your reply. Neither quizartinib nor midostaurin are nucleoside analogs. Both are tyrosine kinase inhibitors, the former for the TK encoded by FLT. FLT+ AML is a common problem in the elderly and bodes poor prognosis. My suspicion is that both will be approved, as phase II efficacy and toxicity have been quite favorable and they represent a new approach to AML, a disease with a bad prognosis.

I consider sapacitrabine “me too” because it will simply join the ranks of other nucleoside analogs: fluorouracil, fludarabine, cytarabine, gemcitabine, capecitabine,, 6-MP, and a dozen others. All of these work by different mechanisms, so in a sense all of them are novel and none of them are novel. All interfere with DNA replication at any of dozens of enzymes involved in the process. My point is that, end of the day, sapacitabine is just another DNA replication interferer. Its dose limiting toxicity is myelosuppression/neutropenia. The nucleoside analogs as a group are toxic to all cells, just more toxic to rapidly dividing ones. They are a 60-year old approach to fighting cancer, and one that needs to be improved upon.

As to survival data, we actually do not yet know about that. The phase II AML study had patients in three dosage arms for sapacitabine, and compared their outcomes with historical controls, presumably untreated patients. No study data comparing patients randomized to either sapacitabine or an active comparator are yet available. In reviewing the phase II AML paper in which patients on sapacitabine died, I believe that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty the drug caused their deaths.

As I see it, sapacitabine is just a tweaked nucleoside analog. It is another agent in the class, and if the class were resoundingly successful, it would not be necessary to go on adding new members to it. I am excited by new inhibitors of oncogene products, by therapies that overcome the immune tolerant states tumor cells achieve to survive, and by therapies that reconstitute apoptosis in tumor cells. These will be the game changers. The teaser article wants us to believe sapacitabine is a “holy grail” against cancer, and it is nowhere close to being that. As an investor, Cyclacel thus just doesn’t interest me.

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
4463
Add a Topic
846
George
Member
George
January 9, 2014 12:53 am

A perspective comment: When evaluating cancer drugs, a true breakthrough drug will be on the market based on Phase 2b results due to very strong clinical benefit. Drugs that require two pivotal Phase 3 trials may very well be better than current options, generate significant revenue and result in big pharma buyouts, but the truly special ones will be not require a pivotal phase 3 before marketing. An intermediate class are those that are marketed based on a pivotal 2b and 3 trials instead of two phase 3 trials: faster and cheaper to market. The same can be said of many orphan drugs.

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
570
MARINE
Member
MARINE
January 9, 2014 4:27 am

No idea how I stumbled onto this but started reading. Here is what I found:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/search?q=Calimmune

BTW, I know nothing about any of this just read the feedback above and started poking around the net. Read down and you will come to an article dated: Wednesday, November 11, 2009.
Did a search on Grayhawk Capital in AZ. Guess who they invest in? CELLZDIRECT
and CELLZDIRECT was acquired by Invitrogen, which is now Life Tecnologies. LIFE TICKER. Not sure if this will be the stock to invest in but just reading the first story sounds like David Baltimore who founded Calimmune is a bit shady.
If I am not correct I apologize. Life of a guy who just lost his job. 🙂

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
4030
karmaswimswami
January 9, 2014 5:02 pm
Reply to  MARINE

Marine: Sorry to hear about your job.
As regards D. Baltimore, I feel media have really unfairly tarred him. There is no evidence whatsoever that he committed any sort of fraud. He stood by a researcher in his lab who was accused of fraud, deemed guilty of fraud in a media and investigative frenzy, and the ultimately exonerated. This was the case of T. Imanishi-Kari. She did nothing wrong and her accusers were roundly discredited. There was a subsequent case, a researcher named van Parijs who was found to have committed fraud on multiple occasions in multiple positions, including when in Baltimore’s lab. Baltimore did not fight these allegations, but it is clear he knew nothing of the wrongdoing. Anyway, I think he is quite clean.

Calimmune’s platform is licensed ddRNAi technology from the tiny Australian biotech Benitec. Full disclosure: I am long Benitec. Benitec’s technology will be placed into first-ever-of-kind-human trials any day now as a one-dose regimen that may cure hepatitis C. It has a proprietary viral vector that trafficks exclusively to liver, and will continue to elaborate sharp-hairpin RNA’s complimentary to highly conserved HCV-derived mRNA for 6-12 months. Benitec is tiny ($50 million market cap), not followed by any analyst, and nearly unknown. It was up 33 per cent yesterday, and my feeling is that a lot of people are going to hear a lot about it soon. It has an excellent cash position, an astounding and solid IP portfolio in RNAi, and a clever team that includes Kevin Buchi, formerly of Cephalon, and a heavy investor in Benitec.

Add a Topic
5326
Add a Topic
5256
JJ
Guest
JJ
January 9, 2014 9:08 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

When I stumbled across this articile I thought they were talking about Gradalis (incidentially the word means ‘towards the Holy Grail’). They too are using ddRNAi to treat many forms of advanced cancer and are about to initiate PIII. They are yet to take a licence from Benitec, but will surely need to soon or face the realities of not doing so. Gradalis are private company so you cannot invest, but Benitec is a potential gold mine. Compare what they have with similar biotechs in the US and you will find that they are trading at 1/10th of the value. Incidentially, David Baltimore is a Nobel Laureate and certainly not ‘shady’. The founder of Benitec, Mick Graham was pipped at the post by Fire & Mello, due to being distracted defending these exceptionally valuable RNAi patents. He discovered that RNAi could work in mammals first, but his work was published 3 months later, denying him the Nobel Prize that ultimately went to Fire & Mello.

Add a Topic
4180
Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
4180
karmaswimswami
January 10, 2014 2:38 pm
Reply to  JJ

JJ: Thanks for your comment. You are quite right about M. Graham. The specific guy who designed TT-034 with its three shRNA casettes is David Suhy, plucked from Tacere to Benitec. This month, 14 patients at both UCSD and Duke with genotype 1 HCV that have failed customary antiviral treatment will be dosed with TT-034. If virus burden falls at all by 30 days (and based on work in animal models it will), I see Benitec appreciating like crazy. The company also has a ddRNAsh trial for NSCLC, directed against tumor-expressed tubulin. They have very smart management in place, and decided early last year to do away with their bizarrely Australian capital structure (bajillions of shares priced at 1-2 cents) and do a 1:25 reverse split, so as to make it more appealing to US investors. Nothing good about the company is priced in, and yes, I agree totally that it is a latent gold mine of IP and designable drugs. I have researched it like mad, spoken with management. I have never felt so strongly about a biotech company since Celgene and Intuitive Surgical, which have gone up more than 40-fold since I bought them in their early days. There are others in this space, including Alnylam and Arrowhead, as well as Santaris (not Santarus), but Benitec is in the best intellectual position.

Add a Topic
5248
Add a Topic
210
Add a Topic
915
biocqr
biocqr
January 21, 2014 10:18 am
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Karma, you stated “Benitec is tiny ($50 million market cap), ”
Are you sure that is correct?

On page 35 of Benitec’s 2013 annual report it states…
“At the end of the financial year, there were 439,857,844 unissued ordinary shares (2012: 428,985,202) over which options were outstanding”
http://www.benitec.com/documents/BLTAnnualreport2013.pdf

There’s also 89,609,248 ordinary shares outstanding so on a fully diluted basis that’s 518M shares which gives BNIKF a mc of $337M.

Add a Topic
570
👍 2
JJ
Guest
JJ
January 21, 2014 7:39 pm
Reply to  biocqr

Hi William, there are currently 85,156,527 shares on issue. There was a 25/1 share consolidation last year and also new shares issued. At their current price of 76.5 cents, their market cap is 65,144,743. This is the information on the ASX:BLT Aussie market of course. I don’t understand the market cap they list on the OTC market as listed on Yahoo Finance. It looks out to me. Anyway, the earlier info I gave you should be correct.

JJ
Guest
JJ
January 21, 2014 7:40 pm
Reply to  JJ

Just to clarify, that is $AUD65,144,743 .

biocqr
biocqr
January 21, 2014 7:51 pm
Reply to  JJ

JJ,

As of Nov 12, 2013 the options on issue were 19,797,734 so add that to the shares outstanding… for a total of 104,953,861 fully diluted shares.

Add a Topic
570
Add a Topic
1340
👍 2
JJ
Guest
JJ
January 21, 2014 7:54 pm
Reply to  JJ

sorry William, I just saw some other replies regarding options. The closest lot of options listed as BLTO have a strike price of $2.50 at the end of April 2014. If it hits that, I will be pretty darn happy, and the dilution really won’t worry most early investors. Besides, it will provide a much needed cash injection preventing a further capital raising.

Add a Topic
570
Add a Topic
570
Jim
Jim
January 19, 2014 2:47 pm
Reply to  MARINE

Look at ARWR they are the one that have a better way administer the drug into the cancer cells

Add a Topic
3397
Brian
Member
January 9, 2014 10:23 am

Thanks to all for your input and to Gumshoe. Perhaps someone knows about Cardiome Pharma Corp.(TSE:COM). I made a small investment on them when they crashed early 2012 and then nibbled again near the bottom. In August they headed sharply up and continue to step their way higher. If they can return to their 2010 high near $40, I’d be happy.

karmaswimswami
January 9, 2014 6:55 pm
Reply to  Brian

I am semi-familiar with them. Vernakalant is being sold in the EU for a.fib. but seems hopelessly stalled on FDA approval here. The recent rise must owe to the acquisition of the Swiss company selling tirofiban (Aggrastat), a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor. It’s unclear what is appealing about that drug. It’s an old category of medication, and offers nothing new. Unless there are things in development that they are not revealing, I just see it being stalled here indefinitely without any catalyst for appreciation. If you bought in early 2012 and at the nadir, your average basis may equal where it is trading now. Why not get out and get into something more interesting (which would be almost anything else in the current fertile biotech space)? Hard for me to imagine it ever seeing $40 again. It has a completely empty pipeline. Even if the FDA came around and approved the a.fib. drug, I just can’t see it moving shares much as the drug has a cloud over it.

Add a Topic
3022
Add a Topic
3022
Brian
Member
January 9, 2014 8:26 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Thanks for the info. I considered selling when it first popped over $5 but it’s a very small amount so I figured I’d just let it ride. Plus, my combined price is about $2.80 so I plan to sell if it stalls for a long period or plunges. It’s up nearly 20% is the past 3 days, now pushing $8. That’s up 60% in 3 months so I can’t imagine doing better elsewhere with my knowledge of the sector.

Gregory Ruffa
Guest
Gregory Ruffa
January 9, 2014 1:18 pm

I am interested in the NEW Technologies, coming on Nuclear Energy Generation,
Computer Technologies and New Drugs that have US Approvals.

raven
Member
January 9, 2014 4:04 pm

I must say that this has been one of the most interesting series of comments…even educational.

👍 19
1 2 3 67

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

More Info  
4
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x