2025 Q4 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
10 päivää sitten
Tarjoustasot
Oslo Børs
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 480 | - | - | ||
| 515 | - | - | ||
| 82 | - | - | ||
| 393 | - | - | ||
| 7 050 | - | - |
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 31.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 15.4. | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 28.8.2025 | ||
2024 Q4 -tulosraportti 10.4.2025 | ||
2024 Q2 -tulosraportti 29.8.2024 | ||
2023 Q4 -tulosraportti 25.4.2024 |
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Shareville
Liity keskusteluun SharevillessäShareville on aktiivisten yksityissijoittajien yhteisö, jossa voit seurata muiden asiakkaiden kaupankäyntiä ja omistuksia.
Kirjaudu
·32 min sittenLET ME TELL YOU WHY THIS IS BIGGER THAN MOST REALIZE. 🧬🔬 People see the numbers. 50x in the eye. 40x in the heart. 75x longer RNA lifespan. And stop there. But the real point is not "higher expression." It is duration. Regular mRNA is like a flare. Strong. Short-lived. Gone in days. circVec is something else. Up to 6 months expression in lymphocytes. Not days. Months. It is not a marginal improvement. It is a fundamentally different biology. And that means something concrete: In vivo CAR-T with mRNA lasts a few days. With circVec it can last months. That is the difference between a temporary command and a long-lasting biological instruction. AMD treatment today requires injections in the eye every 4-8 weeks forever. With circVec, one injection can potentially replace that. CNS gene therapy kills patients because doses are too high. circVec provides 10x better effect at 90% lower dose. And then there's what no one talks about: Big Pharma does not pay for finished products at this stage. They pay for the opportunity to own the next platform before everyone else understands it. One of the world's five largest pharmaceutical companies saw the in vitro data. And chose to proceed to in vivo. With their own money. Circio retained all rights. It is not a pipe dream. It is a platform with data, partners, and capital to execute. High risk? Absolutely. This is biotech. But the difference between a dream and an opportunity is validation. We have it. We know what we own. ♟️🧱🍷
·1 t sitten · MuokattuWell, someone asked further down if I had slept well and dreamed of 'cashing in', now that the press release about in vivo studies (primate, I would guess/hope for). Many retail investors will surely overreact to this press release, which was expected, and the share price will surely take off, with new short positions etc, and people will sell out far too early. Swing trading can be done, but I think most retail investors are better off staying calm and not getting burned. Circios' valuation has been very volatile, and people are prone to hype or panic. But calm down, the company is secure since the directed new share issue of 250 million NOK, which secured financing until 2030. In recent days, we received a target price published at 5.90 NOK per share (19.8 bull), see https://analystgroup.se/analyser/circio-holding-2/ . But that is short-term, in the long run, we can expect higher, if the licensing agreements go well! The press release, yes, nice with that, but the value only comes (at least if you believe in the case) when data is presented, and when a licensing agreement is signed (the first in a series of many?). So, important triggers to monitor: Look out for efficacy data in primates and brain disease models during the second half of 2026. Positive results here are the most likely thing that can transform today's hype into CONCRETE, high-value licensing agreements. See image: - But Monday will be exciting – but the autumn will be even more exciting! But don't let yourself be influenced by me or anyone else here on Shareville – do your own analysis. As I usually say, only death is certain! Until then, have a good journey folks!
·2 t sitten · MuokattuIn case of an acquisition, I think I've seen everything from 50-300 NOK per share mentioned. Does anyone have a qualified opinion on this (I know no one has the definitive answer)? And with licensing instead of acquisition, what can one expect then? If you're pulling numbers out of thin air, you don't have to air them here. I apologize in advance if this has been fully answered before, but I don't remember who wrote what, and since the forum is swimming with both rockets and palms, it's hopeless to find everything again.
·3 t sitten · MuokattuNB: This content is pure speculation based on technological understanding and available information. There is no definitive answer, and the information must therefore not be taken as truth or used as the sole basis for decision-making Novartis and Circio: An analysis of toxicity, CNS, and exceptional progress Hypothesis: Is the unnamed Top 5 Pharma partner Novartis? Could the collaboration be driven by an acute necessity to rescue existing gene therapy programs that have failed due to toxicity? Background: Dosing wall and acquired technology The foundation for Novartis' gene therapy initiative, including Zolgensma and Itvisma (OAV-101), was laid through the acquisition of AveXis in 2018 for 8.7 billion dollars. This secured Novartis the rights to the AAV9 technical platform. Despite the investment of approx. 95 billion kroner, the technology has now hit a dosing wall. Novartis: OAV-101 (Itvisma) and challenges with dose and age OAV-101 is an intrathecal gene therapy delivered directly into the cerebrospinal fluid for older patients with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA). Throughout 2025, the focus has been on critical dosing limitations. To achieve sufficient distribution in the central nervous system in adults, a quantity of viral vectors is required that is dangerously close to the tolerance limit for the liver and nervous system. Even with positive signals from Europe in April 2026, the FDA has required extensive safety data to address inflammation in nerve ganglia, known as DRG toxicity. This is precisely the problem Circio solves by lowering the required dose. The Problem: High AAV doses trigger powerful immune responses. The Consequence: Several of Novartis' programs, especially OAV-101/Itvisma, have faced regulatory setbacks due to dose-dependent toxicity. The Solution: Circio's circVec platform increases protein expression by 15 to 50 times, allowing the dose to be lowered to a level that does not trigger the immune system. Three pillars for the Novartis theory Approach: The partner approached Circio Big Pharma rarely initiates external collaborations without a defined technical problem they cannot solve internally. The fact that a Top 5 player actively contacted Circio indicates that they have a specific, valuable asset at risk of being lost due to safety challenges. Speed: From signing to in vivo in 4 months The standard timeline for research collaboration on this scale is usually 9 to 18 months. The agreement was signed in December 2025, and in vivo testing already started in April 2026. This pace is only possible if the partner already had fully developed disease models and data available, and needed Circio's circular RNA module to verify if the toxicity disappears in living organisms. Therapeutic focus: CNS Erik has repeatedly confirmed that CNS is one of the three strategic pillars for circVec. Novartis has one of the world's largest initiatives in CNS gene therapy. It is here that the blood-brain barrier makes dosing most challenging and the risk of side effects greatest. The collaboration's focus on CNS directly aligns with Novartis' strategic gaps and technical challenges. Why not other companies? Novartis stands out from giants like Pfizer and Roche. While competitors have scaled down or shut down large parts of their internal gene therapy departments after safety issues, Novartis has chosen to defend its position as market leader. The company already has the infrastructure and active programs within CNS that require immediate dose optimization. Other companies either lack the same acute need in the CNS segment or the operational capacity to move a project to the in vivo stage in just four months. Analysis of the agreement structure: No Downstream Rights The absence of predefined commercial rights is a logical choice in a situation characterized by high risk and potentially enormous gain. For the partner: They avoid large commitments before seeing if the in vivo results actually remove the toxicity. It is a controlled test of a technical hypothesis. For Circio: The company retains full control over its IP. If the tests show that they have fixed a program worth billions, the value of the technology in the second half of 2026 will be significantly higher than at the time of the agreement. Summary of the hypothesis The combination of Novartis' existing toxicity problems in its CNS portfolio, the speed of project execution, and Circio's unique ability to lower dosing requirements, therefore makes Novartis the most likely partner.
·24 min sittenI believe this is a well-founded theory. I have thought about Lilly but their projects in neurodegenerative disease were reduced or terminated in February 2026 via Prevital which they bought a few years ago. Another interesting circumstance is that Novartis's research in this field is in the USA. I got thoughts that there could be a partner in the USA because of the time the message came yesterday evening. Both messages are connected. They had to get out the status on the study before they cancelled the emission and still while the price was under 10.80. This had to be clarified with the partner. It came during working hours in the USA but in the evening Norwegian time. Then the messages came.·Alle minuutti sittenThat in vivo testing started in April, only four months after the agreement in December, suggests that the partner began production of the medicine (AAV vectors) long before the ink was dry. Such speed is only possible if processes have been run in parallel. Inflammatory markers (cytokines) in the cerebrospinal fluid can be measured immediately after injection. + that increasing protein levels can be seen very early. The clue from Karolinska (KI) shows that circular RNA functions as a protective "scaffold". If the partner sees this stability in their own samples now, they are sitting on a technological revolution.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Sharevillen käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
10 päivää sitten
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Shareville
Liity keskusteluun SharevillessäShareville on aktiivisten yksityissijoittajien yhteisö, jossa voit seurata muiden asiakkaiden kaupankäyntiä ja omistuksia.
Kirjaudu
- ·32 min sittenLET ME TELL YOU WHY THIS IS BIGGER THAN MOST REALIZE. 🧬🔬 People see the numbers. 50x in the eye. 40x in the heart. 75x longer RNA lifespan. And stop there. But the real point is not "higher expression." It is duration. Regular mRNA is like a flare. Strong. Short-lived. Gone in days. circVec is something else. Up to 6 months expression in lymphocytes. Not days. Months. It is not a marginal improvement. It is a fundamentally different biology. And that means something concrete: In vivo CAR-T with mRNA lasts a few days. With circVec it can last months. That is the difference between a temporary command and a long-lasting biological instruction. AMD treatment today requires injections in the eye every 4-8 weeks forever. With circVec, one injection can potentially replace that. CNS gene therapy kills patients because doses are too high. circVec provides 10x better effect at 90% lower dose. And then there's what no one talks about: Big Pharma does not pay for finished products at this stage. They pay for the opportunity to own the next platform before everyone else understands it. One of the world's five largest pharmaceutical companies saw the in vitro data. And chose to proceed to in vivo. With their own money. Circio retained all rights. It is not a pipe dream. It is a platform with data, partners, and capital to execute. High risk? Absolutely. This is biotech. But the difference between a dream and an opportunity is validation. We have it. We know what we own. ♟️🧱🍷
- ·1 t sitten · MuokattuWell, someone asked further down if I had slept well and dreamed of 'cashing in', now that the press release about in vivo studies (primate, I would guess/hope for). Many retail investors will surely overreact to this press release, which was expected, and the share price will surely take off, with new short positions etc, and people will sell out far too early. Swing trading can be done, but I think most retail investors are better off staying calm and not getting burned. Circios' valuation has been very volatile, and people are prone to hype or panic. But calm down, the company is secure since the directed new share issue of 250 million NOK, which secured financing until 2030. In recent days, we received a target price published at 5.90 NOK per share (19.8 bull), see https://analystgroup.se/analyser/circio-holding-2/ . But that is short-term, in the long run, we can expect higher, if the licensing agreements go well! The press release, yes, nice with that, but the value only comes (at least if you believe in the case) when data is presented, and when a licensing agreement is signed (the first in a series of many?). So, important triggers to monitor: Look out for efficacy data in primates and brain disease models during the second half of 2026. Positive results here are the most likely thing that can transform today's hype into CONCRETE, high-value licensing agreements. See image: - But Monday will be exciting – but the autumn will be even more exciting! But don't let yourself be influenced by me or anyone else here on Shareville – do your own analysis. As I usually say, only death is certain! Until then, have a good journey folks!
- ·2 t sitten · MuokattuIn case of an acquisition, I think I've seen everything from 50-300 NOK per share mentioned. Does anyone have a qualified opinion on this (I know no one has the definitive answer)? And with licensing instead of acquisition, what can one expect then? If you're pulling numbers out of thin air, you don't have to air them here. I apologize in advance if this has been fully answered before, but I don't remember who wrote what, and since the forum is swimming with both rockets and palms, it's hopeless to find everything again.
- ·3 t sitten · MuokattuNB: This content is pure speculation based on technological understanding and available information. There is no definitive answer, and the information must therefore not be taken as truth or used as the sole basis for decision-making Novartis and Circio: An analysis of toxicity, CNS, and exceptional progress Hypothesis: Is the unnamed Top 5 Pharma partner Novartis? Could the collaboration be driven by an acute necessity to rescue existing gene therapy programs that have failed due to toxicity? Background: Dosing wall and acquired technology The foundation for Novartis' gene therapy initiative, including Zolgensma and Itvisma (OAV-101), was laid through the acquisition of AveXis in 2018 for 8.7 billion dollars. This secured Novartis the rights to the AAV9 technical platform. Despite the investment of approx. 95 billion kroner, the technology has now hit a dosing wall. Novartis: OAV-101 (Itvisma) and challenges with dose and age OAV-101 is an intrathecal gene therapy delivered directly into the cerebrospinal fluid for older patients with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA). Throughout 2025, the focus has been on critical dosing limitations. To achieve sufficient distribution in the central nervous system in adults, a quantity of viral vectors is required that is dangerously close to the tolerance limit for the liver and nervous system. Even with positive signals from Europe in April 2026, the FDA has required extensive safety data to address inflammation in nerve ganglia, known as DRG toxicity. This is precisely the problem Circio solves by lowering the required dose. The Problem: High AAV doses trigger powerful immune responses. The Consequence: Several of Novartis' programs, especially OAV-101/Itvisma, have faced regulatory setbacks due to dose-dependent toxicity. The Solution: Circio's circVec platform increases protein expression by 15 to 50 times, allowing the dose to be lowered to a level that does not trigger the immune system. Three pillars for the Novartis theory Approach: The partner approached Circio Big Pharma rarely initiates external collaborations without a defined technical problem they cannot solve internally. The fact that a Top 5 player actively contacted Circio indicates that they have a specific, valuable asset at risk of being lost due to safety challenges. Speed: From signing to in vivo in 4 months The standard timeline for research collaboration on this scale is usually 9 to 18 months. The agreement was signed in December 2025, and in vivo testing already started in April 2026. This pace is only possible if the partner already had fully developed disease models and data available, and needed Circio's circular RNA module to verify if the toxicity disappears in living organisms. Therapeutic focus: CNS Erik has repeatedly confirmed that CNS is one of the three strategic pillars for circVec. Novartis has one of the world's largest initiatives in CNS gene therapy. It is here that the blood-brain barrier makes dosing most challenging and the risk of side effects greatest. The collaboration's focus on CNS directly aligns with Novartis' strategic gaps and technical challenges. Why not other companies? Novartis stands out from giants like Pfizer and Roche. While competitors have scaled down or shut down large parts of their internal gene therapy departments after safety issues, Novartis has chosen to defend its position as market leader. The company already has the infrastructure and active programs within CNS that require immediate dose optimization. Other companies either lack the same acute need in the CNS segment or the operational capacity to move a project to the in vivo stage in just four months. Analysis of the agreement structure: No Downstream Rights The absence of predefined commercial rights is a logical choice in a situation characterized by high risk and potentially enormous gain. For the partner: They avoid large commitments before seeing if the in vivo results actually remove the toxicity. It is a controlled test of a technical hypothesis. For Circio: The company retains full control over its IP. If the tests show that they have fixed a program worth billions, the value of the technology in the second half of 2026 will be significantly higher than at the time of the agreement. Summary of the hypothesis The combination of Novartis' existing toxicity problems in its CNS portfolio, the speed of project execution, and Circio's unique ability to lower dosing requirements, therefore makes Novartis the most likely partner.·24 min sittenI believe this is a well-founded theory. I have thought about Lilly but their projects in neurodegenerative disease were reduced or terminated in February 2026 via Prevital which they bought a few years ago. Another interesting circumstance is that Novartis's research in this field is in the USA. I got thoughts that there could be a partner in the USA because of the time the message came yesterday evening. Both messages are connected. They had to get out the status on the study before they cancelled the emission and still while the price was under 10.80. This had to be clarified with the partner. It came during working hours in the USA but in the evening Norwegian time. Then the messages came.·Alle minuutti sittenThat in vivo testing started in April, only four months after the agreement in December, suggests that the partner began production of the medicine (AAV vectors) long before the ink was dry. Such speed is only possible if processes have been run in parallel. Inflammatory markers (cytokines) in the cerebrospinal fluid can be measured immediately after injection. + that increasing protein levels can be seen very early. The clue from Karolinska (KI) shows that circular RNA functions as a protective "scaffold". If the partner sees this stability in their own samples now, they are sitting on a technological revolution.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Sharevillen käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Oslo Børs
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 480 | - | - | ||
| 515 | - | - | ||
| 82 | - | - | ||
| 393 | - | - | ||
| 7 050 | - | - |
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 31.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 15.4. | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 28.8.2025 | ||
2024 Q4 -tulosraportti 10.4.2025 | ||
2024 Q2 -tulosraportti 29.8.2024 | ||
2023 Q4 -tulosraportti 25.4.2024 |
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti
Vain PDF
10 päivää sitten
Uutiset
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 31.8. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 15.4. | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 28.8.2025 | ||
2024 Q4 -tulosraportti 10.4.2025 | ||
2024 Q2 -tulosraportti 29.8.2024 | ||
2023 Q4 -tulosraportti 25.4.2024 |
Shareville
Liity keskusteluun SharevillessäShareville on aktiivisten yksityissijoittajien yhteisö, jossa voit seurata muiden asiakkaiden kaupankäyntiä ja omistuksia.
Kirjaudu
- ·32 min sittenLET ME TELL YOU WHY THIS IS BIGGER THAN MOST REALIZE. 🧬🔬 People see the numbers. 50x in the eye. 40x in the heart. 75x longer RNA lifespan. And stop there. But the real point is not "higher expression." It is duration. Regular mRNA is like a flare. Strong. Short-lived. Gone in days. circVec is something else. Up to 6 months expression in lymphocytes. Not days. Months. It is not a marginal improvement. It is a fundamentally different biology. And that means something concrete: In vivo CAR-T with mRNA lasts a few days. With circVec it can last months. That is the difference between a temporary command and a long-lasting biological instruction. AMD treatment today requires injections in the eye every 4-8 weeks forever. With circVec, one injection can potentially replace that. CNS gene therapy kills patients because doses are too high. circVec provides 10x better effect at 90% lower dose. And then there's what no one talks about: Big Pharma does not pay for finished products at this stage. They pay for the opportunity to own the next platform before everyone else understands it. One of the world's five largest pharmaceutical companies saw the in vitro data. And chose to proceed to in vivo. With their own money. Circio retained all rights. It is not a pipe dream. It is a platform with data, partners, and capital to execute. High risk? Absolutely. This is biotech. But the difference between a dream and an opportunity is validation. We have it. We know what we own. ♟️🧱🍷
- ·1 t sitten · MuokattuWell, someone asked further down if I had slept well and dreamed of 'cashing in', now that the press release about in vivo studies (primate, I would guess/hope for). Many retail investors will surely overreact to this press release, which was expected, and the share price will surely take off, with new short positions etc, and people will sell out far too early. Swing trading can be done, but I think most retail investors are better off staying calm and not getting burned. Circios' valuation has been very volatile, and people are prone to hype or panic. But calm down, the company is secure since the directed new share issue of 250 million NOK, which secured financing until 2030. In recent days, we received a target price published at 5.90 NOK per share (19.8 bull), see https://analystgroup.se/analyser/circio-holding-2/ . But that is short-term, in the long run, we can expect higher, if the licensing agreements go well! The press release, yes, nice with that, but the value only comes (at least if you believe in the case) when data is presented, and when a licensing agreement is signed (the first in a series of many?). So, important triggers to monitor: Look out for efficacy data in primates and brain disease models during the second half of 2026. Positive results here are the most likely thing that can transform today's hype into CONCRETE, high-value licensing agreements. See image: - But Monday will be exciting – but the autumn will be even more exciting! But don't let yourself be influenced by me or anyone else here on Shareville – do your own analysis. As I usually say, only death is certain! Until then, have a good journey folks!
- ·2 t sitten · MuokattuIn case of an acquisition, I think I've seen everything from 50-300 NOK per share mentioned. Does anyone have a qualified opinion on this (I know no one has the definitive answer)? And with licensing instead of acquisition, what can one expect then? If you're pulling numbers out of thin air, you don't have to air them here. I apologize in advance if this has been fully answered before, but I don't remember who wrote what, and since the forum is swimming with both rockets and palms, it's hopeless to find everything again.
- ·3 t sitten · MuokattuNB: This content is pure speculation based on technological understanding and available information. There is no definitive answer, and the information must therefore not be taken as truth or used as the sole basis for decision-making Novartis and Circio: An analysis of toxicity, CNS, and exceptional progress Hypothesis: Is the unnamed Top 5 Pharma partner Novartis? Could the collaboration be driven by an acute necessity to rescue existing gene therapy programs that have failed due to toxicity? Background: Dosing wall and acquired technology The foundation for Novartis' gene therapy initiative, including Zolgensma and Itvisma (OAV-101), was laid through the acquisition of AveXis in 2018 for 8.7 billion dollars. This secured Novartis the rights to the AAV9 technical platform. Despite the investment of approx. 95 billion kroner, the technology has now hit a dosing wall. Novartis: OAV-101 (Itvisma) and challenges with dose and age OAV-101 is an intrathecal gene therapy delivered directly into the cerebrospinal fluid for older patients with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA). Throughout 2025, the focus has been on critical dosing limitations. To achieve sufficient distribution in the central nervous system in adults, a quantity of viral vectors is required that is dangerously close to the tolerance limit for the liver and nervous system. Even with positive signals from Europe in April 2026, the FDA has required extensive safety data to address inflammation in nerve ganglia, known as DRG toxicity. This is precisely the problem Circio solves by lowering the required dose. The Problem: High AAV doses trigger powerful immune responses. The Consequence: Several of Novartis' programs, especially OAV-101/Itvisma, have faced regulatory setbacks due to dose-dependent toxicity. The Solution: Circio's circVec platform increases protein expression by 15 to 50 times, allowing the dose to be lowered to a level that does not trigger the immune system. Three pillars for the Novartis theory Approach: The partner approached Circio Big Pharma rarely initiates external collaborations without a defined technical problem they cannot solve internally. The fact that a Top 5 player actively contacted Circio indicates that they have a specific, valuable asset at risk of being lost due to safety challenges. Speed: From signing to in vivo in 4 months The standard timeline for research collaboration on this scale is usually 9 to 18 months. The agreement was signed in December 2025, and in vivo testing already started in April 2026. This pace is only possible if the partner already had fully developed disease models and data available, and needed Circio's circular RNA module to verify if the toxicity disappears in living organisms. Therapeutic focus: CNS Erik has repeatedly confirmed that CNS is one of the three strategic pillars for circVec. Novartis has one of the world's largest initiatives in CNS gene therapy. It is here that the blood-brain barrier makes dosing most challenging and the risk of side effects greatest. The collaboration's focus on CNS directly aligns with Novartis' strategic gaps and technical challenges. Why not other companies? Novartis stands out from giants like Pfizer and Roche. While competitors have scaled down or shut down large parts of their internal gene therapy departments after safety issues, Novartis has chosen to defend its position as market leader. The company already has the infrastructure and active programs within CNS that require immediate dose optimization. Other companies either lack the same acute need in the CNS segment or the operational capacity to move a project to the in vivo stage in just four months. Analysis of the agreement structure: No Downstream Rights The absence of predefined commercial rights is a logical choice in a situation characterized by high risk and potentially enormous gain. For the partner: They avoid large commitments before seeing if the in vivo results actually remove the toxicity. It is a controlled test of a technical hypothesis. For Circio: The company retains full control over its IP. If the tests show that they have fixed a program worth billions, the value of the technology in the second half of 2026 will be significantly higher than at the time of the agreement. Summary of the hypothesis The combination of Novartis' existing toxicity problems in its CNS portfolio, the speed of project execution, and Circio's unique ability to lower dosing requirements, therefore makes Novartis the most likely partner.·24 min sittenI believe this is a well-founded theory. I have thought about Lilly but their projects in neurodegenerative disease were reduced or terminated in February 2026 via Prevital which they bought a few years ago. Another interesting circumstance is that Novartis's research in this field is in the USA. I got thoughts that there could be a partner in the USA because of the time the message came yesterday evening. Both messages are connected. They had to get out the status on the study before they cancelled the emission and still while the price was under 10.80. This had to be clarified with the partner. It came during working hours in the USA but in the evening Norwegian time. Then the messages came.·Alle minuutti sittenThat in vivo testing started in April, only four months after the agreement in December, suggests that the partner began production of the medicine (AAV vectors) long before the ink was dry. Such speed is only possible if processes have been run in parallel. Inflammatory markers (cytokines) in the cerebrospinal fluid can be measured immediately after injection. + that increasing protein levels can be seen very early. The clue from Karolinska (KI) shows that circular RNA functions as a protective "scaffold". If the partner sees this stability in their own samples now, they are sitting on a technological revolution.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Sharevillen käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Oslo Børs
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 480 | - | - | ||
| 515 | - | - | ||
| 82 | - | - | ||
| 393 | - | - | ||
| 7 050 | - | - |
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt