Motif Bio Share Discussion Threads

[pjj71] 19/6/2019 10:12

Cant blame Sandgrove selling.. I guess they can always buy back in the 1p placing and still get multiples of the shares they are dumping now....

[h2owater] 18/6/2019 08:49

Off topic

Check out IQAI to recoup MTFB losses

FDA approval imminent!

hxxps://youtu.be/6BCSZIi5VQE

Watch video!
Mcap far too low! 3.5m

Only 120m shares in issue

[ih_676530] 13/6/2019 09:50

Interesting.....Not sure if MMs playing any games today but currently on the L2 there is only one block of shares to sell under 4p (at 3.5p) then straight to 4.8p :

Screenshot :

[ih_676530] 13/6/2019 08:19

Sandgrove closed their spread bet. Obviously they had to (Not the number of shares they hold in MTFB) :

% of voting rights through financial instruments (total of 8.B 1 + 8.B 2)

[pjj71] 13/6/2019 07:52

I'm guessing 3p better than 0p...

[loglorry1] 12/6/2019 18:56

Looks like Sandgrove are throwing the towel in. Only another 342 million shares to try to get rid of then!

[small crow] 12/6/2019 18:15

And not a good one ....

[ajseabright] 12/6/2019 18:01

After hours holding RNS!

[buywell3] 12/6/2019 14:45

The Yanks are a tad slow

Looks like they have finally realized that this will need CASH

[pjj71] 12/6/2019 14:39

I'm presume Amphion wont be subscribing in the fund raising when it comes... any thoughts on likely price? I'm guessing it will be around the 1p level.. any thoughts on how much will also be needed, is it in the ballpark of $80m, given that's how much the last trials cost.. could it be more given the need for more patients???

[sunnybeachboy] 12/6/2019 13:42

Bid 3.01 lowest I've ever seen.

[ivyspivey] 11/6/2019 20:20

Don’t think the issue is one of diagnosing which stage of liver disease patient is in though is not as clear cut as 4 stages of CKD.
It is more the lack of defined bio markers which are good prognostic indicators of future liver damage.

[buywell3] 11/6/2019 18:47

buywell3 - 18 Feb 2019 - 19:22:09 - 3279 of 3989 Motif Bio: Developing novel antibiotics to fight infection - MTFB

I would imagine the FDA have a problem with the following

1. How does any person taking , or any doctor that may prescribe, this drug( if approved), know the exact state of the liver function in question, that will have to process the drug and thus because of the AUC problems identified by the FDA ,perhaps suffer damage ?


2. Assuming some sort of test could be made to assess the exact state of liver function of the patient to take the drug then there would most likely have to be at least 3 different dose options to choose from.

3. Risk of wrong dose options being prescribed then exist

The FDA are going to play safe whatever , they have to withdraw enough approved drugs as it is.

Around 50% of the FDA approved drugs that have to be withdrawn as a Class 1 recall(most serious) are due to guess what ?

liver damage






From original European submission back in 2009.


A mild impaired hepatic function has a slight effect on the exposure of iclaprim (30% increase). AUC more than doubled in subjects with a moderate hepatic impairment. In case the dose was halved, AUC was only a little higher than the AUC observed in normal subjects. The SPC recommends no dose adjustment for subjects with a mild hepatic impairment, and a dose reduction of 50% for patients with a moderate hepatic impairment, which is agreed based upon the pharmacokinetic results.

[ivyspivey] 11/6/2019 18:42

Hi Boom/Timbo
I would be pretty sure the FDA would allow the HABP trial as at the pre Revive trial meeting in 2015 they offered 2 ABSSSI or 1 ABSSSI and 1 HABP trial as route to Approval

[bermudashorts] 11/6/2019 15:30

Timbo,

Agreed and it all comes down to funding now. Best case scenario is that the FDA will allow the new trial to be carried out in HABP but I fear it may want to see quite large patient numbers.

It seems the main issue surrounds the disparity between the Iclaprimn and Vanc arms in the small nos. of patients with latent elevations in AST/ALT levels.

[buywell3] 11/6/2019 15:16

Your loss pawsche

Should have caught my early posts on this thread

[timbo003] 11/6/2019 15:13

This is now difficult to call. There seems to be a way forward for Iclaprim for the Skin indication, but there will need to be another trial (size and cost unknown) and there is no guarantee that the study will give read out we want.

With the benefit of hindsight, would it have been better to go for the pulmonary indication first? Given the drugs distribution profile, perhaps there would have been be an option for a lower dose?

The liver enzyme data should not present problems for the other two indications discussed in the conference call (CF and ophthalmic), but they are both long term developments.

Looking at this FDA slide deck, you can see where the FDA concerns come from regarding elevated ALT levels:


However, from the numbers given in the conference call, elevated enzymes are an infrequent event with Iclaprim (and would quite possibly be no different to Vancomycin in a broader setting) and furthermore they are not necessarily related to liver toxicity.

[small crow] 11/6/2019 10:08

Looking interesting.

[small crow] 10/6/2019 16:55

Nice finish.

[buywell3] 10/6/2019 16:36

Nope



Not going to do that

[escapetohome] 10/6/2019 00:30

Oh well at least woodford escaped this one.

Seems to be in just about every other.

Of course with his blue chip record, he obviously didnt understand timing is everything.

[mhin2] 09/6/2019 21:45

I thought liver toxicity was the problem before and MTFB were addressing it...so have MTFB completely failed or marginally failed to address this issue. I will watch and research. Could be massive upside, or complete failure. Given, from what I understand, the story of Iclaprim the BOD seem to be overpaying and not delivering...like a lot of the incompetents carpet bagging overpaid/under-performing execs on AIM. I hope not, but I have my doubts.

Lets see where the share price stabilizes ...