Shield Therapeutics Share Discussion Threads

[shandypants2] 17/9/2020 09:23

Borromini is the most negative poster. Best to ignore him.

Always comes on when good news is announced and starts planting doubts.
Just before FDA announcement he did the same.
Some of what he says are valid points, but this is lost as his delivery is deliberately negative.
There are no doubts with Feraccru - STX has received a number of non binding offers. Enough said.

[nobbygnome] 17/9/2020 09:16

>> Borromini

It's all about the US licensing deal and nothing else. Product will be on sale there early next year (assuming of course that a deal is done). That's all that matters for the share price....

[frrinvest] 17/9/2020 08:38

"We reiterate our 350p target price (DCF). This excludes the potential value of milestone payments from a US licensing deal, which we estimate could be c.$50m upfront with $100m+ of commercial milestones."

Says it all.

[peachie 74] 17/9/2020 08:35

It’s a third line option due to cost. You know that. Stop finding problems that aren’t problems. You’re agenda is clear.

It’s like Rheumatoid patients being given methotrexate ( cheap , relatively ineffective ) first to see if it works.

If it doesn’t patients become eligible to take Anti TNF treatment ( expensive , very effective )

Of course health authorities will try cheap options first and cross their fingers it works.
So I’ll save my research into areas of relevance , not your problem finding agenda.

[borromini1] 17/9/2020 08:26

Peachie - If you can not find any company data to show the speed and efficacy of the Feraccru rate of absorption compared to standard of care Iron tablets try finding any NHS area that does not block Feraccru or restrict it to a third line option behind standard of care Iron tablets.

Has any NHS area reviewed and changed their recommendation around Feraccru in the last 24 months? If so we need to know about it.

The lack of sales progress in the UK is reflected in the H1 2020 STX UK revenue figure of £23,000. Though we don’t know how this breaks down or when a royalty period payment is booked into the cycle.

The company have been pinning their UK hopes on the delayed H2H study triggering favourable reviews and a change of policy across all NHS areas, we have to wait for the October release of the report to see the new health economics analysis and wait more months for signs of the NHS response to it.

[nobbygnome] 17/9/2020 08:22

Virtually nothing offered on the RSP so it looks like we could make more progress today. I don't think it will take much more buying to get the price going....

[peachie 74] 17/9/2020 07:33

350p target price excluding payments from ( inevitable!) licensing deal, which estimate at 50 million dollars upfront with 100 million dollars of commercial milestones.

Sounds good to me. And we are sat at 120 !!

[peachie 74] 17/9/2020 07:30

Share price performance

Morning note from FinnCap 16/09/2020

Mark Brewer
Director of Research [e-mail] 020 7220 0556
Arshad Ahad
Research Analyst
Shield Therapeutics*
Interims in line, awaiting US partner
Interim results to 30 June largely reflected the licensing income from ASK Pharm in China. Revenues were £8.9m, with royalties of c.£0.2m despite disruptions due to COVID-19 and £8.7m of milestone payments. This resulted in an adjusted net profit of £4.4m (vs a loss of £3.4m in H1 2019). A net cash inflow of £2.4m in the period resulted in cash at 30 June of £6.5m, providing a cash runway to Q1 2021. The figure excludes potential significant up-front payments and milestones for the US, for which a licensing deal is still expected. An order to its contract manufacturer for US launch stocks for delivery by year-end should provide comfort despite the understandable shortage of information pertaining to licensing discussions. We leave our forecasts unchanged (excludes potential upfront payments from US licensing deal) and reiterate our 350p target price.
Interim results in brief. Revenues rose to £8.9m (vs. £0.4m), comprising £8.7m of milestone payments and c.£0.2m of royalties. Net profit of £3.1m (vs. a restated net loss of £4.2m in H1 2019) implied an adjusted net profit of £4.4m (vs a loss of £2.9m). Period- end cash was £6.5m, up from £4.1m at 31 December 2019, implying an underlying (ex- upfront) cashburn of c.£4.2m in the period (excludes the net £7.8m cash receipt from Chinese licensing rights and the £1.2m of fees paid to advisers for the China licence).
Outlook – US licensing deal. Shield is in discussions with a number of potential partners, some of which have submitted non-binding offers. Whilst details of the ongoing discussions are understandably not disclosed, confirmation that Shield has ordered launch stocks of US packs of Accrufer from its contract manufacturer for year-end 2020 should serve as a strong indication that a licensing deal is close.
Regulatory update. Indications from the Chinese regulatory authority that approval could be gained from short-term Phase III study in Inflammatory Bowel Disease without the need for a pharmacokinetic study or Phase III clinical study in Chronic Kidney Disease is positive and indicates a potential 2023 launch. The regulatory approval process in Australia is also underway, with a potential approval by year-end.
Cash runway extends into Q1 2021 with year-end 2020 cash of £1.2m dependent on the timing of R&D expenses relating to the paediatric Feraccru study. This excludes the potential for substantial upfront payments from a US licence deal and other smaller markets where Shield has entered discussions.
Valuation. We reiterate our 350p target price (DCF). This excludes the potential value of milestone payments from a US licensing deal, which we estimate could be c.$50m upfront with $100m+ of commercial milestones.

This research cannot be classified as objective under finnCap research policy. Please visit www.finncap.com or the Research Library

[johnwise] 17/9/2020 07:26

Commenting on the interim results, Tim Watts, CEO of Shield Therapeutics plc, said:

"I am pleased that we have made good operational progress in the first six months of 2020. In January we signed an important licence deal in China with ASK Pharm who have since made excellent progress in agreeing the development plan with the Chinese regulatory authorities as we look to expand the territories in which Feraccru(R) is marketed.

"Norgine grew net sales of Feraccru(R) in Europe by 50% compared with the second half of 2020, and the first half sales in 2020 have matched the sales for the whole of 2019 notwithstanding the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the hiatus with the results of the AEGIS-H2H study, the re-analysis of the data has confirmed that Feraccru(R)/Accrufer(R) is a credible alternative to IV iron therapy.

"Over the period we have also continued to make progress to secure a commercialisation partner for the important US market which remains our top priority for 2020 and will update the market on this at the appropriate time."

[peachie 74] 17/9/2020 07:12

Don’t know why that’s not on the tip of my tongue 🧐😂
The point is standard Iron supplements are cheap yes , but poorly tolerated and absorbed. Hence why IV iron is needed. And hence why the massive market exists for Shield as a cheaper, safer and more convenient alternative to IV.

So I’m not sure the relevance of your post referencing a small local health authority’s procedure of attempting the cheap tablet first. It appears you are trying to find a negative when there isn’t one.
If I misread you, apologies. Your agenda confuses me at times though.

[borromini1] 17/9/2020 05:53

Peachie - do you have the reference for the company data to show the speed and efficacy of the Feraccru rate of absorption compared to standard of care Iron tablets?

[peachie 74] 16/9/2020 22:41

Borro.... of course they will try the cheap ferrous salts first. Stupid business model if they didn’t. But they are highly ineffective hence why Feraccru is needed as the alternative in the next step instead of IV.
No one doubts that so not sure what you are trying to proove?

[onceaday] 16/9/2020 22:23

Very useful to know. Rhe difference in cost seems compelling. However, I think the document might be based on the more limited label that was first awarded..

One of the main pounts I have heard is that getting a patient started on an oral tablet is much quicker than IV. Its the difference between a quite trip to a pharmacy vs arranging a hospital appointment. In reality this could.mean a patient gets treated earlier on Ferracru...

[borromini1] 16/9/2020 21:03

We are talking about trying to change this lot and others where Feraccru is relegated to third place and only after ferrous salts have failed.



Feraccru® for mild to moderate iron deficiency anaemia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.
Feraccru® (oral ferric maltol) is recommended as an alternative to intravenous iron where two or more first line oral ferrous salts have failed or there is reported intolerance (RECOMMENDED Specialist advice)

[whatno] 16/9/2020 20:55

it's worth hearing what a real world NHS consultant says about using the drug. There's a video on the proactive investors site entitled "Medical expert discusses his experience working with Shield Therapeutics' Feraccru drug"

[borromini1] 16/9/2020 20:50

OK fail to correct the bad design of the H2H trial. Just leave the consequences to run for the patent life.

Not quite the same strategy for the USA deal where we keep being told the most important thing is to take what ever time it takes to get the right partner for the next 15 years of patent life.

[nobbygnome] 16/9/2020 20:36

Meanwhile back in the real world where the company can only recommend actions for which they have data. Yes some physicians may try it but the company cannot promote something for which they have no evidence!

[borromini1] 16/9/2020 20:15

Putting the question of why not aside.

How about building on what is available.
Rather than still harking back to a wished for equivalence why not include the case for IV for first infusion for speed of response followed by Feraccru for post week 4 treatment and consistency of impact. Thereby removing the cost and inconvenience of any second or subsequent infusion. You keep the advantages of IV while taking a good chunk of it’s market, rather than still relying on peddling just the all or nothing scenario. It may also enable the safer use of a lower dose IV first infusion.

Maybe find out how it is actually being used in practise in by far the biggest market, Germany, maybe we will get a surprise.

[nobbygnome] 16/9/2020 19:38

They have no data for that scenario. Yes they could do some modelling but I doubt payers would take any notice of it.

[borromini1] 16/9/2020 19:26

Talking of missing an obvious trick, is there any reason why combined treatment scenarios are not included in the performance to cost health economics assessments as part of the H2H Clinical Study Report?

[nobbygnome] 16/9/2020 19:23

What would the point of signing confidentiality agreements if they didn't see the data? In my past life I have been directly involved in this sort of situation and the company will have access to all the data.

[nobbygnome] 16/9/2020 19:11

I just don't buy that I'm afraid. The potential licensees will have seen all the data when they signed confidentiality agreements so don't need to wait for publication.

[borromini1] 16/9/2020 18:12

STX H2H Clinical Study Report publication now expected October 2020.

I doubt the US deal will be completed before this is released and worked it’s magic.

[nobbygnome] 16/9/2020 17:19

Overall very encouraging. If you assume a US Deal and other lesser deals are done in the near future, the shares are a steal at the current price IMHO. Yes there will be a few more weeks to wait but for such a banker it is definitely worth the wait!