Summit Therapeutics Share Discussion Threads

[luminoso] 04/10/2016 10:38

Thanks, Solomon and agree, hugus.

[hugus maximus] 04/10/2016 09:39

Many thanks Solomon ... I now get completely what you're saying. That makes absolute sense. Summit moves forward in a quest to modify the quantity of utrophin in the boys muscle but does not know until the trial results are available, as to whether this will actually help build the boys muscle.

However what leads Summit researchers to follow this line of investigation, is that in mice, utrophin modulation has shown to build muscle and the hope is that this process repeats itself in humans.

Hopefully EZD will not just produce a "surrogate" effect.

[solomon] 03/10/2016 23:19

luminoso, Hugus Maximus, my understanding is that the measurement of an increase in Dystrophin in muscle after 12 week injections of Eteplirsen is a "surrogate effect". To my knowledge the situation is analogous to the cholesterol scenario. GP's will put you on statins to reduce your risk of vascular problems supposedly due to raised levels of the wrong type of cholesterol. Statins have been clinically tested and shown to reduce heart attacks and strokes. GP's will not recommend Benecol even though it has been proven to reduce the plasma levels of cholesterol because Benecol and the like have not shown a similar reduction in heart attacks and strokes. This is a case of "surrogate effect" being given undue emphasis when symptom alleviation is not present. Benecol reduces cholesterol but not vascular disease. I don't think anyone knows why.
Similarly Eteplirsen increased Dystrophin, which sounds good, but does not follow through in alleviating the symptoms of DMD. Summit will have the same problem (this time with utrophin levels), but thankfully better markers are being employed.
Ben Goldacre probably explains it better than me when he writes about the Eteplirsen story (as in 2011):
"But this story is also a reminder that we should always be cautious with “surrogateR21; outcomes. The biological change measured was important, and good grounds for optimism, because it shows the treatment is doing what it should in the body. But things that work in theory do not always work in practice, and while a measurable biological indicator is a hint something is working, such outcomes can often be misleading."

[luminoso] 03/10/2016 20:20

Hi waterloo. Yes, and the midwife has just indicated there may be the need for an urgent injection !
Point taken on current share price equivalent on nasdaq.
However, the slow decline of the share price in the face of the very positive news in the last fortnight suggests to me that a lucrative deal on C.Diff is not at all imminent and therefore a placing is almost certain. This in itself does not bother me, but the length of time it seems to be taking is frustrating.
Once funded, we are off to the races IMO.

[waterloo01] 03/10/2016 18:24

It's a little bit like waiting in a maternity room.

As for Nasdaq, low volume compared to recent days and still trading at £1.36 so no indicator there.

Not sure which day we present but we should get further detail on the F6 formulation and possibly more on enrolment/US start? RDZ latest trial due as is any partner news. (edit: and funding of course).

[luminoso] 03/10/2016 17:59

US price action seems to be suggesting a placement. Just wish they would get on with it. I am waiting for the opportunity to top up again after a placement but the money is burning a hole in my pocket. Other temptations exist.
Any tweets giving anything away ?

[luminoso] 03/10/2016 16:31

Its not the science that has got SRPT to where they are today. Its the lobbying.

[hugus maximus] 03/10/2016 15:30

Solomon .. fascinating Lancet piece from 2011. If the information that Sarepta went to the FDA with had been as clearcut as this, what on earth has been going on for 5 years? Surely the FDA grounds for confusion would not have been the case if this data had simply been exhibited again in the final trial (albeit with less boys in the trial)?

What have we all been missing with eteplirsen?

There must have been something that came to light that made this all problematic.

[solomon] 03/10/2016 14:52

luminiso, The Lancet article alluded to in Hyper Al's link to Ben Goldacre's excellenet article does indicate that weekly intravenous infusions of AVI-4658 (that is the same as Eteplirsen, right?) causes an increase in dystrophin levels in the muscle over 12 weeks.
I'll put the links up again because I do find Ben Goldacre to be exceptionally good at seeking out misinterpretations of science.

[luminoso] 03/10/2016 13:25

Silly me to invest in a company working on a drug to help all DMD sufferers and already showing extremely encouraging signs of working - instead of investing in a company with a drug that has failed to convince anyone with a brain that it can even help 13% of DMD sufferers. I now realise that I am just not cut out for the investing game !

[hugus maximus] 03/10/2016 13:13

An extremely gung ho article about Sarepta here on SeekingAlpha and how Eteplirsen's FDA approval will ultimately make them ripe for takeover with anticipated share price "between $90 - 150". (If only Summit!)

The article goes on to explain how this opens the door for a new generation of Exon skipping drugs,(so that's 13% OF DMD boys currently targeted and an additional 16% with the next generation of their drugs) In the meantime it suggests that there has been a lowering of the bar by the FDA which will make life easier for the competition.

Interesting observation is that the competition is perceived to be anyone working in the Exon skipping field (some test data reporting 2021)... however Summit or Utrophin work not even mentioned (some test data reporting Q3 2107)?



Edit: If that's "cautiously optimistic" ???????

[chrisatrdg] 02/10/2016 23:48

Hi Clarkey26 Thinking the same - I am expecting something positive.

[clarkey26] 02/10/2016 21:29

Half year results conference call, Glynn seemed to suggest to the last question from institutional investor that conference this week very much worth attending, so what are we going to hear or just a silly throw away comment?!

[waterloo01] 01/10/2016 14:53

Hard to disagree with Ben Goldacre. Hopefully this is both where our biomarkers work and the use of MRI, and trial size will take the results from the subjective to more objective.

Rare disease voucher extended till end Dec.

[luminoso] 30/9/2016 22:33

Thanks, chrisatrdg. I had not noticed the late reported trades. Strange price action on a day when it would appear that buys hugely outnumbered sells. But wtfdik.

[deejay007] 30/9/2016 21:38

Question is when will Sarepta make a bid, if any ?

[chrisatrdg] 30/9/2016 19:50

You were dead right luminoso just look at the two late Buys of 100,000 at £1.35 total £270,000 unless they are roll overs. Beggars belief.

[luminoso] 30/9/2016 12:11

I think they wanted some shares. Its easier to mark the price down sharpish and scare people to get them to sell, than mark it up. Fear and Greed - the opposite to supply and demand.

[abergele] 30/9/2016 12:06

How can 50k of this shares more sold than bought ,
bring 6% off a market cap I ask you,,£67k in money terms..
they are wanting to work this down as there are people who want in at lower in my view...

Ahh that's better,a 10k buy after I posted,,but only a tadge better on my thought,still over 5% down,bahh

[tightfist] 30/9/2016 11:43

HM,I agree. If we believe in the prospects for EITHER of our drug candidates we surely don't want to get sold short now. Sarepta's helpful nod yesterday to Utrophin approaches must surely be helpful in now getting away a substantial placing at a sensible price (unless SRPT's new partner has some useful IP?). If that isn't feasible the original plan of selling some of the territory rights to RDZ to fund the (now lower) costs of taking EMD to market looks increasingly attractive, especially now that the FDA have lowered the bars, increasing the probability of success.Cheers, tightfist