Share
85 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 16
clock Created with Sketch. 22/08/20
00:53
Share
Originally posted by Chacra:
↑
Let me start by stating that I am a share holder in both companies. I have held and traded MSB share for the last 4 months and have held CYP for 2 weeks. I believe that both companies have great potential however MSB as we all know is well ahead both in the commercialisation of its product/s and is driven by a far superior team. In the case of CYP, they have exclusive worldwide license to the patents for the relevant technology from UWM and Fujifilm as well as company owned patents while MSB owns all patents. MSB has approximately 584.5 million share on issue in Australia and 117 million in the USA while CYP has approximately 117.1 million share on issue. Much has been written about MSCs (not all positive), however with the mounting evidence widely available it is hard to argue against their efficacy in down-regulating severe life threatening inflammation at the source via very specific pathways with much yet to be learned. MSCs are applicable to numerous conditions and at present dozens of medical trials are being conducted. Searching through many studies it would appear that bone marrow derived hMSCs (MSB) are superior immuno-regulators when compared to umbilical cord or adipose tissue derived hMSCs but still much more research is needed to elucidate the many complex mechanisms at play. Cynata's MSCs are derived from iPSCs obtained from blood. I have not found any direct immuno-modulatory comparison between them and BM derived MSCs, however the single origin and donation of the cells is highly conducive to a more consistent product with lower production cost. The trials results presented by both companies relate to the treatment of Steroid-Refractory GvHD which is driven by an immune reaction initiated by the donor's cells which shares the deadly characteristics with the cytokine storm syndrome affecting some Covid-19 patients and many other conditions. CYP is far lighter on data therefore we must be careful when comparing results as I am about to do. The study conducted by CYP was made up of adults (n=15) and in the case of MSB Protocol 280 (n=163, including 28 children), EAP 275 (n=241, all children) and Phase 3 Study 001 (n=54, all children). When MSB's predecessor (Osiris) interpreted the data from Protocol 280 they realised that there was a marked difference in the response to the infusion between the adult and paediatric population. The results indicated a Day 28 OR of 58% for the total number, however the paediatric data shower a Day 28 OR of 64%. Based on the results one can assume that the adult population had a Day 28 OR less than 58%. This results were obtained from MSCs derived by the original process only and subsequent tests with the optimised cells did not include adults. EAP 275 (all children) used both original and optimised product and produced results of 65% for Day 28 OR and 66% for Day 100 OS. Phase 3 Study 001 used optimised product only and the data showed a Day 28 OR of 70% and a Day 100 OS of 74%. When the data for the original and optimised process was analised, it showed a Day 28 OR 63% and a Day 100 OR 58% for the original process derived cells and a Day 28 70% and a Day 100 OS 75% for the optimised process cells. CYP's only trial results does not provide the Day 28 OR (I would like to know) however Day 100 OR is 87%, Day 100 OS 87% and 2 years OS 60%. If we want to compare the response of the treatments in the adult population we have only data of adults treated with MSB's original product Day 28 OR less than 58%. The paediatric results with the original process was Day 28 OR 64% and 70% for optimised so for the purpose of this exercise I will assume that the best possible result for the adult population treated with cells from the optimised process would be around 64% (or less). Therefore: Day 100 OR MSB (Adult) 64% CYP (Adult). 87% Day 100 OS MSB (Paediatric) 75% CYP (Adult). 87% 2 Years OS CYP 60% From the results above we can conclude that with the limited information available it would appear that CYP obtained superior results for the Adult Day 100 OR, 87% v 64% and Paediatric 100 Day OS, 87% v 75%. MSB 2 Years OS not available. It is well established that potency is critically important for positive outcomes and that potency is negatively affected by cell expansion/age. From all information available CYP's MSC have minimum expansion compared to MSB's. When comparing the results above consider that in MSB's results (as per all available literature) paediatric populations respond better to stem cells therapies. It must also be noted that in the MSB trial 8 to 12 infusions per patient was used versus CYP's 2 infusions per patient. It is my opinion that both companies have great upside and I am very happy to the a share holder. Best wishes to all shareholders.
Expand
There is so much that we don't know about CYP product. I was really interested in investing since I know some of our members are also holders of CYP. But after having some read on iMSCs (or MSCs derived from iPSCs) that CYP produces, I have concerns over safety and efficacy. Safety in terms of its tendency of having cancer-causing genes1 and incomplete reprogramming when converting iPSCs to MSCs2 . Efficacy due to the low conversion rate of iPSCs3 and most recent findings which suggest that IMSCs are actually more similar to VPCs than MSCs4 . I thought better wait until MSB hit $20 then maybe sell some to gamble on CYP. Best of luck with your investment.
(20min delay)