Shield Therapeutics Share Discussion Threads

[peachie 74] 17/3/2020 16:29

Yep. Going to try and load up having looked at this in a different light. After dumping a load this morning in a hissy fit !!
Just got more at 55p

[crankyman] 17/3/2020 16:11

Sure. It’s embarrassing but doesn’t justify this massive dummy spit. After all, the price didn’t rise much on the back of the H2H in the first place. Just hold and let it rise or load up if you’ve got the cash.

[nobbygnome] 17/3/2020 16:10

Yes a complete over reaction...but I guess we can't be surprised in this market. It may effect their overall sales but it will be marginal and of course we will never know the true effect because it is not on the market in most places yet. As I said earlier it won't affect the labels which is the important thing. And with regard to the Norgine deal, they didn't have the results to this trial when they did that deal!

[peachie 74] 17/3/2020 15:48

Although gutted at the share price , I now feel this is total over reaction.
But it is as it is and not a good time for investors

[peachie 74] 17/3/2020 15:47

Todays RNSToday 08:43
Most studies will use the ITT (all patients who entered the study) as their primary population for analysis, and need to present this population for a regulatory submission (marketing authorisation application). However, in a non-inferiority study such as the AEGIS-H2H clinical trial, which is not being used to support a marketing authorisation, you can pre-define the per protocol population as your primary population for analysis, and present the ITT alongside it. The issue here appears that the protocol required the study meet non-inferiority in both the ITT and PPP, and the company “inadvertently” forget to mention this to investors. The market’s completely overreacted as this won’t be new news to regulators or anyone assessing the pricing of the drug. It’s just new news to investors who feel a bit aggrieved it wasn’t at least mentioned in the original RNS. In reality, other than denting investor confidence, it won’t really change much and will have been known for some time.

Posted on another website who knows his pharma beans.
Happy to hear comment from others who know the industry

[crankyman] 17/3/2020 13:58

It’s a mistake in the statistical analysis plan. It affects the messaging in a publication. What else?

[peachie 74] 17/3/2020 13:21

I just fail to believe investors knew this was coming ...
the initial fall was surely relative to lack of US news, people following the market and finally Covid 19.

Today has just amplified the fall.
Just not sure what to think about this now, keep rereading the statement.

[crankyman] 17/3/2020 10:25

Comms- communications

[crankyman] 17/3/2020 10:24

By the way, this data was not in the US label so a US partner could not use it in med comma anyway. Does this justify a 75% fall in the share price?

[crankyman] 17/3/2020 10:21

No way there would be an impact on the upfront. This is a typo issue

[best1467] 17/3/2020 10:15

Am I write in thinking the upfront paid by Nordgine and the upfront from the China deal will be up for renovation or am I miss reading

[crankyman] 17/3/2020 09:51

Yeah, they stuffed up some specifications in the protocol. People would still look at the per protocol even if they had not done that. Even the actual ITT outcome sows a trend in favour of IV. These facts were known. Nothing here is really new.

[crankyman] 17/3/2020 09:46

The essence of the H2H was the recurrence issue. It’s about managing the disease over years and years, not 3 months. If you manage it with IV alone people have to go back because over time the anemia returns. Fine, some people still won’t comply with an oral but this is about those that do even though they couldn’t tolerate an oral before

[2theduke] 17/3/2020 09:35

I’m inclined to agree. Maybe more the issue about why they got the scope / reporting wrong

[crankyman] 17/3/2020 09:31

Ok if you include the outcomes of the patients that didn’t take the drug, it drags down the mean. BFD. This is a marketing study.

[2theduke] 17/3/2020 09:22

Just to clarify- the inferiority is based on the less recommended testing method - where people do and don’t comply. This is actually the same I think as the very first results back at the initial crash. The method that ensures strict compliance did should non inferiority.
The fact this study looked at both methods and thus accufer failed the former is the issue. The fact that shield didn’t confirm it should be EITHER not both is really poor form sadly.
Hoping for a recovery for you guys and that pill can help those that need it.

[crankyman] 17/3/2020 09:13

A million times, this drug doesn’t replace IV. IV penetration is tiny and, in some markets (like China) nonexistent. Yeah, people get it in Switzerland. People with IBD will still get IV but Feraccru fits as a follow up. Would not be surprised if we end back where we were today

[daveboy1] 17/3/2020 08:56

Yes, they need to get out there and reassure. Results are out 26th March, could assist , famous last words.

[ny boy] 17/3/2020 08:51

Hopefully if no fund selling, maybe a over reaction based on current market volatility, let’s see what happens and await news, press, broker comments etc.

Existing vols are quite low

[peverill] 17/3/2020 08:40

Makes getting stopped out at 1.30 seem less painful.They should ban AiM and the people involved in it,totally incompetent of running a business.

[montyhedge] 17/3/2020 08:39

Seems overreaction, but in these markets any negative news, a company shareprice gets absolutely whacked.

[ny boy] 17/3/2020 08:31

These AIM companies always seem to find errors, discrepancies etc that lead sp’s to fall to the downside, be nice to get one that goes the other way and is actually a good error!

Not a great few weeks for investors across the board, got quite a few stocks that have bombed, some hopefully temporarily whilst we ride out Corona virus problems.

We need some clarification from Carl here and the house broker, some reassurances!

[crankyman] 17/3/2020 08:30

This is not really a big deal. So the PP went against non-inferiority, and the ITT went in favour. This does not justify a massive collapse. It's ridiculous. It's not like the non-inferior H2H meant anything

[78steve] 17/3/2020 08:13

I think FTSE companies are probably safer bets as i have seen this happen too often on Aim obviously there must be people still benefitting but feel for people who lose a packet

[best1467] 17/3/2020 08:13

Not surprised by the fall with the current climate it makes me sick to the pit of my stomach I find it difficult to believe that an error as trivial as it appears in the reading of the study I would suggest that it may have been red flagged by one of the USA interested parties going through the data