Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Motif Bio LSE:MTFB London Ordinary Share GB00BVVT4H71 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 24.75p 24.50p 25.00p - - - 279,857.00 08:53:13
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology 0.0 -5.8 -9.5 - 48.45

Motif Bio Share Discussion Threads

Showing 1101 to 1124 of 1125 messages
Chat Pages: 45  44  43  42  41  40  39  38  37  36  35  34  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
26/3/2017
14:47
Thanks for the update Timbo.
t-trader
02/3/2017
10:42
Many thanks for you reply Vulgaris Intersting
fightfear
01/3/2017
22:41
Fightfear MICs (= minimum inhibitory concentrations = lowest concentration of drug that stop the bug growing in the lab) are indeed 4 to 16-fold lower (=more potent) for tedizolid (Merck) than linezolid (generic ex Pfizer). This advantage has been spent in a lower dosage: 200 mg once a day for tedizolid vs. 600 mg twice a day. As a result the breakpoint (the MIC that defines the border between susceptible and resistant) is only 0.12 for tedizolid vs 2 or 4 mg/L for linezolid. So, put simply, the greater potency of tedizolid is cancelled out by the lower dosage and breakpoint... Where there MAY be an advantage is in side effects. Linezolid has a reputation for affecting blood counts, also for GI disturbance and, much more rarely neuropathies. Phase III clinical trials in ABSSSI suggested fewer side effects with tedizolid, but it was only given for 6 days vs 10 for linezolid, with early (2-3 day) responses as good for both analogues. So, it's possible to upset Merck by arguing that the trial just showed that linezolid is ordinarily given for too long, not that tedizolid really has fewer side effects at all. Overhanging everything, though, is linezolid going generic and the price coming down. That means most people will prefer it, perhaps seeing if they can shorten the course. I do wonder if tedizolid might be an option in patients who, for whatever reason, usually chronic infection, need long therapy, meaning that linezolid isn't suitable, but it hasn't been trialled for this and my view here is no more than speculative. It might also be explored in TB but, again, the work hasn't been done yet. Far the more interesting antibiotic in Merck's stable is ceftolozane-tazobactam (Zerbaxa), which is highly potent against the great majority of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains, including some of the carbapenem-resistant ones flagged in the WHO report.
vulgaris
01/3/2017
21:11
Timbo: many thanks for the summary - great read as always Vulgaris: I was wondering what your views are on Sivextro (Tedizolid phosphate) - is it a competition for Iclaprim? Quote: Tedizolid is a second-generation oxazolidinone derivative that is 4-to-16-fold more potent against staphylococci and enterococci compared to linezolid. And some data: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4123804/ If you could be so kind to share your opinion that would be much appreciated. Thank you
fightfear
01/3/2017
11:02
Worth a read.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39104411
nilsvs
28/2/2017
21:37
Clinical trials are statistically powered to show non-inferiority to 'standard of care' (which hopefully is 'effective'). It's a rare bonus if superiority is seen
vulgaris
28/2/2017
11:49
Emphasis on effective of course - new not necessarily better..
ohisay
27/2/2017
19:48
Yet again we are warned of the threat of a looming pandemic. This time the WHO have issued a dire warning of super bugs killing tens of millions in the coming years if we do not develop effective antibiotics. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/02/27/a/
hoggar
27/2/2017
14:33
Thanks Vulgaris Alas, there wasn't really time to go into that sort of detail, I intend to have a more thorough look at this on my return to the UK next week.
timbo003
26/2/2017
18:48
Timbo, Thanks---- interesting. Cidality / killing rate matters in a few infections (e.g. of the heart valve) or in some groups of immunosuppressed patients (e.g. those undergoing bone marrow transplant), but not in e.g. ABSSSI ---- very fast killers, e.g. daptomycin aren't more effective in this setting that slow killers e.g. vancomycin or bacteriostatic agents such as linezolid. The mutant selection data - and the difference to trimethoprim - are interesting. Did they offer an explanation? Were the trim-selected mutants cross-resistant to iclaprim? There is some evidence that iclaprim binds differently to staphylococcal DHFR a little differently than trimethoprim (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19211577) and this might alter vulnerability to mutational resistance. Nonetheless the bigger issue remains the actual iclaprim resistance reported in the IDWeek poster and what causes that? Ditto the phase II HAP/VAP data are interesting, but: 1) It's prudent to convert these 3-significant-figure percentages back to real numbers--- by my count clinical cure is 17/23 with the low dose iclaprim, 15/24 with the higher dose of icplaprim and 12/23 for vanco. If I pool all the iclaprim patients and compare with the vanco patients, the difference isn't significant at p <0.05 on a (quick and dirty) Chi square test. 2) I'm mildly confused that these are back to mg/kg dosage, not fixed. Are they new Motif Phase II or old Arpida? 3) Patients o the lower dose iclaprim seem to have fared better than those on higher dose (0.8 mg/kg q12h better than 2.3 mg/kg q8h), again supporting the view that differences among groups are random noise. Lastly, it'll have to be bloody good to justify USD350 p.d., with generic linezolid and potentially daptomycin on the market. Even still-under patent ceftaroline would be much cheaper see e.g. http://www.pharmacytimes.com/publications/health-system-edition/2012/may-2012/ceftaroline-teflaro. The only anti-gram-positivs that are commanding $3000 tags are 1 or 2 dose agents that allow the physician to get the patient out of hospital very swiftly --http://www.pharmacytimes.com/contributor/matthew-stanton-pharmd-bcps/2016/03/orbactiv-and-dalbavancin-one-and-done
vulgaris
26/2/2017
10:45
Excellent overview Timbo Thank you!
typhoon
26/2/2017
09:56
Very much appreciated Timbo.
colebrooke
26/2/2017
09:29
Cheers Timbo, Great write up, appreciate your time and effort.
t-trader
26/2/2017
07:53
Timbo, many thanks.
small crow
26/2/2017
00:43
Apologies for the late write up from last Tuesday’s Rocket Bar meeting, but I had to travel to Las Vegas to begin a 10 day vacation on Thursday morning, so have only just found time to put a few notes together (see below). Unfortunately I did not get an opportunity to ask any questions in the open Q&A session, but I managed to get one in afterwards (see last question on Q&As) : Motif Bio held an Investor evening on Tuesday night (Feb 21st 2017) at the Rocket Bar (near Bank tube station) where there were around 35 attendees. Graham Lumsden gave the presentation using a slide deck was more or less the same as the latest corporate presentation which can be found on the Motif Bio web site (see link below): http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9NjU3ODU5fENoaWxkSUQ9MzY0MDI4fFR5cGU9MQ==&amp;t=1 The presentation lasted for around 25 minutes and there was around 20 minutes for Q&As. Graham and Robert (the newly appointed CFO) stayed around for around 45 minutes afterwards, before heading off to meet their Auditor for diner. There was quite a bit of new material which I hadn’t heard before at previous presentations, details of some of the new material are outlined below: GL emphasized that obtaining wide spread acceptance by healthcare payers is becoming increasingly important for drug developers and just gaining regulatory approval was only half the battle. In addition to Iclaprim providing an alternatives for patients where the current SOC was potentially problematic (for example patients with renal problems), Motif are now considering further possible points of difference for Iclaprim vs the current Standards of Care (SOC) for the target indications. These additional points of difference could include a faster speed of onset and reduced propensity to resistance which alone or together could result in a clinically significant improvement in outcomes. For example, shorter hospital stays, or even reduced mortality, both of which would be compelling reasons for healthcare providers to adopt Iclaprim for more widespread use, or even to replace the current Standards of Care. GL presented a number of slides comparing Iclaprim with the current standards of care which showed lab data showing a faster onset and less susceptibility to bacterial resistance (see slides below). GL stressed that showing differences such as faster onset, reduced hospital stay or reduced mortality were not necessary for Iclaprim to be successful and they were effectively stretch objectives, but if they could be achieved they should increase Iclaprim’s commercial value considerably. Q and As Q: How much do you envisage charging for Iclaprim? A: The analysts estimates are based on $350/day, or $3.5K for a ten day course Q: Why was the uptake by US investors low? A: It was lower than we had hoped,. We raised $25m we were looking for $35m. It was a poor time to raise cash, we did better than many others at around that time, for example Synthetic biologics could only get their funding away with 200% warrant cover and another company (I didn’t catch the name) had to do 100% warrant cover. Motif managed to get away with 50% warrant cover. Other factors specific to Motif were that we had to inform the market that we were getting low on cash in October and SEC were accusing Motif of conditioning the market with one of the Proactiveinvestor videos, so we had to curtail marketing activities for the fund raise. Q: Why didn’t you go for a big pharma partner? A: We wished to go it alone in the US, although we were looking for partners for other territories. There certainly was interest, although we couldn’t find anyone who wanted to pay an upfront payment at the stage we had reached, instead they stated that they preferred to wait until the read out from the two Revive studies. We are continuing to have lots of discussions for the other territories and to explore grants. Q: Why didn’t you raise in London Again after the successful July 2015 raise at 50p? A: We were looking at that in June 2016 and we thought we had investors lined up, but then we had the Brexit vote and all UK based fund raising was off the agenda Q: Once Iclaprim is approved for one indication, do you think there may be off label use? A: Maybe, but iclaprim will only be approved for Hospital use, Hospital Docs tend to be reluctant to go off label. Q: How confident are you that with the new dosing regime and improved pharmacokinetics you will be able to allay the EMA’s previous concerns about adverse events associated with high Cmax in some patients? A: The adverse events that EMA were concerned about in the previous Aripida studies have not been seen in the current Revive studies and adverse events are reported on an ongoing basis. The agencies both seemed satisfied with the outcomes of the pharmacokinetic modelling we conducted to support the change in dosage to a fixed dose per patient and for a 2 hour infusion time.
timbo003
20/2/2017
09:58
I guess that's one the the reasons they had such difficulty getting the ADR's away and couldn't raise enough to funds all trials that are ongoing (I'd certainly be asking about funding). I'm out for now on Motif but wish all well. Some well informed posters which is always welcome.
waterloo01
19/2/2017
18:20
Thanks Vulgaris, assuming I get the opportunity, I will quiz GL on those points, I do know they are well aware of the EMA comments on the narrow therapeutic window, as it has come up before in conversations with GL
timbo003
19/2/2017
08:22
I shall go along to the Motif Bio presentation at the Rocket Bar on Tuesday. Is anyone else planning to go along? >>>>Vulgaris, could you give me a few (three ?) of what you consider the most important questions (criticisms) regarding Iclaprim to put to GL on Tuesday. TIA Did anyone see this episode of "Trust me I'm a doctor" the other week, in particular the item starting at 36:20 http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08dzvjy/trust-me-im-a-doctor-series-6-episode-2 Some researchers in the Netherlands are studing patients with Eczema associated with Staph Aureus and then attempting to reduce the Staph without hitting the other benign (beneficial bacteria). They hope to acheive this by using using endolysins (which do not cause resistance). They get the read out in around 12 months (according to the program), so I look forward to that. A quick google search comes up with quite a few hits, for example this one, which I'm guessing was written by one of the sponsors: http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/fmb.14.142
timbo003
01/2/2017
13:05
I have bought my first holding here today. This seems a useful informative board. The next 12 months look like they will be interesting. I am mainly in Immupharma (IMM) and there seems to be some familiar faces here too!
pdt
31/1/2017
15:59
Second RNS out 20 mins ago.
timberwolf3
31/1/2017
09:22
luminoso, agree. Excellent to get trial recruited and dosed, just they have always said they will need more cash (as they failed to raise the original amount needed on Nasdaq). Positive news today but needs to be seen in context.
waterloo01
31/1/2017
08:47
It seems clear to me that they are saying they need to raise funds to complete Revive 2 and hope that headline results from Revive 1 will allow them to do so more easily. That could be another placing or a partnership or something else. I don't read the announcement as hinting any more than that.
luminoso
31/1/2017
08:23
I suspect that last sentence hints at likely partnerships/T.O. and the possibility that a simple fundraiser may not, therefore, be required. If trials go well, this is unlikely to remain independent IMO.
small crow
31/1/2017
07:59
Really? This was from last week. Financials – the company raised $25m before expenses in its NASDAQ IPO in November 2016. We expect that in 2016 Motif will have generated an operating loss for the year of $41m with SG&A costs of $4.3m and R&D expenses of $36.8m representing the vast majority of expenses and demonstrating the sharp focus on product development within the business. We estimate that Motif will have ended 2016 with cash of $23.6m but highlight that it is likely to have ended the year with accrued trial-related costs of around $10m. In 2017 we anticipate R&D spending will decrease as the company’s REVIVE-1 and REVIVE-2 ABSSSI phase III trials complete and assuming that the third phase III trial, INSPIRE (in bacterial pneumonia), will not commence in the absence of new funding. However, we believe that the likely positive REVIVE-1 results will enable access to new funding and this will allow both the completion of REVIVE-2 and the initiation of INSPIRE (estimated to cost around $40m over 3 years).
waterloo01
Chat Pages: 45  44  43  42  41  40  39  38  37  36  35  34  Older
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:41 V: D:20170330 05:00:31