If you decided to buy Cassava Sciences yesterday everything went perfectly (except the price)

Yesterday I laid out the pros and cons of buying Cassava Sciences that day.  The post is reproduced below the ***

Everything I hoped for came true.  The 50 patients on Sumafilam were followed for 9 months and their ADAS-CoG score improved by 3 points.  This is unprecedented for any Alzheimer’s drug.  Historical controls show that Alzheimer patients lost 5 points a year on ADAS-CoG.  So this is a potential net gain with therapy vs. no therapyof  6 – 7 ADAS-CoG points.  Recall that a perfect ADAS-CoG score is 70.  I’ve been unable to find what the average score of 50 patients was on entry.  The paper isn’t published, but is public record results having been presented at conferences (such as today).  Recall that historical controls must be used as the study was open label (e.g. no concurrent controls).

Addendum 30 July:  Since everything turns on ADAS-CoG, here is a link to a complete description along with some discussion — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5929311/

On a slide from Cassava’s presentation yesterday the ADAS-CoG average of the 50 patients on entry 9 months ago was 16.6.  With a perfect score of 70, it’s clear that these people were significantly impaired (please look at the test items to see how simple the tasks in ADAS-CoG actually are).    So an improvement of 3 points at 9 months is significant, particularly since a drop of 5 points is expected each year — yes I’ve seen plenty of Alzheimer patients with ADAS-CoG scores of zero or close to it. 

However using historical controls is a no no particularly in neurology and cardiology.

Why?

From an old post “MDs gradually woke up to the fallacy of using historical rather than concurrent controls particularly in studies of therapies to prevent heart attack and stroke, as the rates of both dropped significantly in the past 50 years, and survival from individual heart attacks and strokes also improved.”

 

However, I think using ADAS-CoG is OK in Alzheimer’s as we’re  talking about a disorder with no useful therapy.

 

I’m pleased that I saw the possibility of continued improvement in cognition in yesterday’s post.

 

So all my hopes for the drug came true, yet the stock tanked, closing at 103 down 32 points (down 24%) !

 

Why?  Well, in the past few months, all companies with drugs for Alzheimer’s disease have been fluctuating in price together, and one of them (to remain nameless to protect the innocent) had the temerity to release a 25 day study today on their drug based on 14 patients.  The stock was down 60%.

 

So Cassava got tarred with this brush.

 

Another likely reason is that the rise in Cassava was fueled by very small investors.  If you watched the transactions on a day SAVA was soaring, the purchases were rarely over 200.  So many of them were likely buying because others were.  So they sold when others were.  Lemmings anyone?

 

Nonetheless, SAVA’s data is much better than Biogen’s awful (and expensive) Aduhelm, so that Sumafilam is almost certain to be approved (1) if the data continue to be good (2) if a controlled trial controlled underway produces the same result.

 

So I think, in the long run, that the stock has a bright future, but as John Keynes said “In the long run we are all dead”

 

*** Yesterday’s post

 

Should you buy Cassava Sciences today?

Tomorrow Cassava Sciences will announce the interim results of an open label trial of its Alzheimer drug Sumafilam in 50 patients receiving the drug for 9 months. Should you buy the stock today?

The stock (symbol SAVA) has had a huge run this year starting at 7 and closing yesterday 27 July ’21 at 127.50.

I’ve been interested in the stock for several reasons

l. As a neurologist, I’ve watched patients, family members and friends deteriorate and die, being totally unable to help them.

2. I’ve known one of the principals in the company since she was a teenager in Montana — Lindsay Burns https://luysii.wordpress.com/2021/02/02/montana-girl-does-good-real-good/

3. Sumafilam is thought to work by a completely different mechanism of action than previous approaches (all of which have failed to produce a useful drug)– https://luysii.wordpress.com/2021/03/25/the-science-behind-cassava-sciences-sava/

In fact some of these therapies have actually made Alzheimer’s worse [ Nature Reviews Drug Discovery vol. 18 p. 327 ’19 ]

Tomorrow’s results should move the stock significantly.  If there is no improvement in cognition the stock will plummet.  If there is improvement the stock should soar, at least double again.  Why? Because we have no useful therapy.  Forget Biogen’s drug Aduhelm — the FDA advisory committee resigned in protest after the drug was approved, as the evidence for help was minimal at best.

Of course I’m rooting for the drug as a clinician and as a friend of Lindsay.

There is some evidence that the results tomorrow will show that the drug helps

 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cassava-sciences-seat-top-charts-142318201.html

“A prior analysis after six months showed patients taking Cassava’s medication had a 10% improvement on cognition and 29% improvement on an inventory of dementia-related behavior, like delusions and anxiety.

 

The author of the article didn’t realize just how unprecedented these results are.  The numbers of patients (50) and the time (6 months) are long enough to make statistical fluke unlikely.

 

It is even possible that the patients will continue to improve — from the 6 month results, in which case the stock will go bananas.

 

Here’s why.

This isn’t in the books, but there is a precedent for continued improvement on Sumafilam based on my clinical experience with Parkinson’s disease.

 

I was one of the first docs able to prescribe L-DOPA for Parkinsonism in 9/70.  L-DOPA was released in the USA that month, after unconsciounable delay by the FDA.  I’d just left the Air Force and was starting to finish up my neurology residency at the University of Colorado.  The chief (James Austin) called me in and tasked me with setting up the brand new L-DOPA clinic.

 

 

We didn’t know what the drug would do, so we proceeded very cautiously.  Giving a little, watching, waiting, giving a little more, watching, waiting.  Wash rinse repeat.  The results were dramatic, as (like current therapy for Alzheimer’s disease), previous therapy was lousy. 

 

What became apparent to me, was that patients continued to improve ON THE SAME DOSE.   One of the mistakes GPs would make in subsequent years was increasing the dose quickly, since improvement was continuing (on the theory that if a little is good more would be better).  This pushed patients into toxicity (reversible fortunately). 

 

Something similar happens with all the antidepressants we have (except the ketamine derivatives).  You almost never see improvement in the first week or two. 

 

Do I know what tomorrow’s results will be?  Do I have inside information?  No.  Both my wife’s parents had decades long careers at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and I well know how they regard trading on inside information.

 

So these thoughts are just educated guesses.  If you are trying to decide whether or not to buy the stock, I hope they will be helpful to you.  Full disclosure: I do have a small position in the stock and am anxiously awaiting tomorrow’s results.

Should you buy Cassava Sciences today?

Tomorrow Cassava Sciences will announce the interim results of an open label trial of its Alzheimer drug Sumafilam in 50 patients receiving the drug for 9 months. Should you buy the stock today?

The stock (symbol SAVA) has had a huge run this year starting at 7 and closing yesterday 27 July ’21 at 127.50.

I’ve been interested in the stock for several reasons

l. As a neurologist, I’ve watched patients, family members and friends deteriorate and die, being totally unable to help them.

2. I’ve known one of the principals in the company since she was a teenager in Montana — Lindsay Burns https://luysii.wordpress.com/2021/02/02/montana-girl-does-good-real-good/

3. Sumafilam is thought to work by a completely different mechanism of action than previous approaches (all of which have failed to produce a useful drug)– https://luysii.wordpress.com/2021/03/25/the-science-behind-cassava-sciences-sava/

In fact some of these therapies have actually made Alzheimer’s worse [ Nature Reviews Drug Discovery vol. 18 p. 327 ’19 ]

Tomorrow’s results should move the stock significantly.  If there is no improvement in cognition the stock will plummet.  If there is improvement the stock should soar, at least double again.  Why? Because we have no useful therapy.  Forget Biogen’s drug Aduhelm — the FDA advisory committee resigned in protest after the drug was approved, as the evidence for help was minimal at best.

Of course I’m rooting for the drug as a clinician and as a friend of Lindsay.

There is some evidence that the results tomorrow will show that the drug helps

 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cassava-sciences-seat-top-charts-142318201.html

“A prior analysis after six months showed patients taking Cassava’s medication had a 10% improvement on cognition and 29% improvement on an inventory of dementia-related behavior, like delusions and anxiety.

 

The author of the article didn’t realize just how unprecedented these results are.  The numbers of patients (50) and the time (6 months) are long enough to make statistical fluke unlikely.

 

It is even possible that the patients will continue to improve — from the 6 month results, in which case the stock will go bananas.

 

Here’s why.

This isn’t in the books, but there is a precedent for continued improvement on Sumafilam based on my clinical experience with Parkinson’s disease.

 

I was one of the first docs able to prescribe L-DOPA for Parkinsonism in 9/70.  L-DOPA was released in the USA that month, after unconsciounable delay by the FDA.  I’d just left the Air Force and was starting to finish up my neurology residency at the University of Colorado.  The chief (James Austin) called me in and tasked me with setting up the brand new L-DOPA clinic.

 

 

We didn’t know what the drug would do, so we proceeded very cautiously.  Giving a little, watching, waiting, giving a little more, watching, waiting.  Wash rinse repeat.  The results were dramatic, as (like current therapy for Alzheimer’s disease), previous therapy was lousy. 

 

What became apparent to me, was that patients continued to improve ON THE SAME DOSE.   One of the mistakes GPs would make in subsequent years was increasing the dose quickly, since improvement was continuing (on the theory that if a little is good more would be better).  This pushed patients into toxicity (reversible fortunately). 

 

Something similar happens with all the antidepressants we have (except the ketamine derivatives).  You almost never see improvement in the first week or two. 

 

Do I know what tomorrow’s results will be?  Do I have inside information?  No.  Both my wife’s parents had decades long careers at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and I well know how they regard trading on inside information.

 

So these thoughts are just educated guesses.  If you are trying to decide whether or not to buy the stock, I hope they will be helpful to you.  Full disclosure: I do have a small position in the stock and am anxiously awaiting tomorrow’s results.

The plural of anecdote is NOT data (in medicine at least)

The previous post (https://luysii.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/the-plural-of-anecdote-is-data/) showed that collecting a bunch of small studies (anecdotes) was extremely helpful in seeing the larger picture.

In medicine exactly the opposite occurs. The only way to find out if something works is to do a controlled study. [ Science vol. 297 p 325 ’02 ] There were over 50 observational studies showing benefits for hormone replacement in menopausal women.. Observational studies are basically anecdotes. During the planning study for the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), some argued that it was unethical to deny some women hormones and give them a placebo. The reason HERS (Heart and Estrogen/Progesterone Replacement Study) was even done was that Wyeth couldn’t get the FDA to approve hormone replacement therapy as a treatment to prevent cardiovascular disease, so they funded HERS to prove their case. Most readers of this have probably read all sorts of bitching about the slowness of the FDA in approving drugs but in this case they did the female populace a huge favor.

As you probably know, the results of hormone replacement in both studies were a disaster (the HERS trial was stopped at 5.2 years after because of increased breast cancer in the treated group). There was also an increased risk of coronary heart disease by 30%, stroke by 41%. At least hip fracture was reduced. Fortunately, even though these were bad outcomes, they were infrequent,(but more frequent in the treated group).

These weren’t lab animals, but someone’s wife and/or mother.

How could they have been so far off? Before all this started, estrogen users were different from nonUsers in several respects — first they were doing something about their health, and clearly had more medical supervision. In addition they were better educated, smoked less and of a higher social class, all of which tend to diminish morbidity and mortality.

Something very similar happened in my field of neurology (not that vascular disease doesn’t severely impact the nervous system). There was a very logical operation to improve cerebral circulation — the pulse just in front of your ear is the superficial temporal artery, a branch of the common carotid after it splits in the internal carotid which goes into the skull and supplies blood to the brain, and the external carotid. If the internal carotid is blocked and the common carotid artery is open, then open the skull and hook (anastomose) the superficial temporal artery to a vessel on the surface of the brain, bypassing the blockage. If you want to know how it is done see — http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1150876/.

There was all sorts of anecdotal evidence of miraculous recovery from stroke. The neurosurgeons and vascular surgeons mounted a wonderful controlled study of the surgery even though many thought it was unnecessary — so 1377 patients were prospectively randomized to have the surgery or medical management. The surgery wasn’t better than medical management N Engl J Med 1985; 313:1191-1200November 7, 1985DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198511073131904, so the procedure was abandoned.