This is a decent amount to read but I reckon it's full of pertinent information so we can grow as a group. From Patersons research note: Well positioned for growth.
Page 18
AHZ’s immunotherapy business consists of four programs; two pre-clinical, and two clinical. The two pre- clinical programs, which we will not discuss in this note, both target cancers related to the human papilloma virus (HPV). With respect to the clinical programs, the most advanced is a Phase II therapeutic vaccine54 (called COR-1) to treat genital herpes, or herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2). The second clinical program, which is about to start a Phase Ib trial, is a therapeutic vaccine (presently unnamed) to treat human papilloma virus (HPV) associated head and neck cancer.
Page 20
COR-1 is competing against other HSV-2 vaccine candidates, as well as existing approved frontline treatments for HSV-2. With respect to existing treatments, there are three antiviral drugs approved to treat the symptoms of HSV-2. These are acyclovir (Zovirax, GSK), valacyclovir (Valtrex, GSK), and famciclovir (Famvir, Novartis). These antivirals are all taken in DAILY PILL FORM. Some patients take them daily for 2-10 days only during outbreaks, other patients take these antivirals daily all year round as a suppressive treatment.
Page 21
By comparison, COR-1’s competitors have achieved the following reductions in viral shedding loads:
- Acycolvir antivirals: reductions between 76% and 82% compared to baseline in phase III trials
- GEN-003 DNA vaccine: a reduction of 40% compared to baseline in a 131 patient phase IIb trial67 (This
is an encouraging result because of the size of the trial).
- Vaxfectin DNA vaccine: a reduction of 19% compared to baseline (placebo achieved a 45% reduction!) in a phase 1/2 trial. 68 (This is a poor result, and we would be surprised if Vaxfetin progresses much further in the clinic).
- Theravax live vaccine, yet to start phase II, so viral shedding rate yet to be measured
On this basis, and at face value, COR-1 is less efficacious than existing frontline antiviral therapy, but potentially more efficacious than any of the competing vaccines (where data is available). In our view, in order to be commercially successful as a mono-therapy therapeutic vaccine, a future trial of COR-1 would need to achieve a reduction in viral shedding rate of at least 75%. At this level of shedding reduction, COR-1 could usurp the existing antiviral market as COR-1 would have none of the gastro side effects associated with antivirals, and patients would prefer to take a few injections of a therapeutic vaccine rather than daily antivirals for life.
Even at the present 50-60% reduction in viral shedding, especially if this proved durable over years, there would, in our view, be a market for COR-1 taken in combination with antivirals. The scientific rationale here is that the combination of the therapeutic vaccine and the antivirals may reduce viral shedding to a level where patients are reliably non contagious.
So we are aiming for at least 50-60% and at 75%+ we will usurp the anti-viral market (see above paragraph)
Then on page 22
After 12 weeks from the initial inoculation, study arm patients went from a 38% reduction in viral shedding to a 58% reduction over an additional 9 months and after 2 boosters. If that trend was to continue over an additional year (= 2 additional 6 month boosters), the viral shedding rate would fall another 20% to 78%. At this level of reduction, COR-1 would be able to usurp the long-term antiviral market. And if the trend indicated with this curve was to continue over two years (=4 additional boosters), COR-1 would get to the status of a practical cure for HSV-2, with a reduction in viral shedding of 98%.
That's a king hit and will add another king along cardiocel I think.
In relation to the infusion business, and I have shortly mentioned this to WP.
We must keep this division because it generates cash and that cash can be used to add value to other divisions.
It also has major benefits tax wise which I'm sure he would know no doubt really as he seems very smart.
This is a model of a conglomerate such as Berkshire
We should also not use stock to purchase other companies because one day say for example we use our stock at 30c to buy a small player, one day that stock of ours will be worth many multiples whereas If we just paid cash then that's it.
No dilution. Another lesson Berkshire has demonstrated as a monumental mistake
Just read Warrens special letters. A must read if you really love investing.
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/SpecialLetters/WEB past present future 2014.pdf
I'm going out for a feed
(20min delay)