Biotech Values

[willyw]

don't understand...value of ENTA's continued drug development for the HCV field.

A) IF you could treat the hardest to cure you could also presumably treat the easiest.
B) Quite possibly pan genotypic, shorter treatment time (it looked like dramatic viral declines could be expected).
c) Presumably could treat all forms of resistant RAVs from other treatment failures. Since Gilead is working on a triple salvage TX, and Abbvie was just given expedited approval in G-1 treatment failures for G/P this would seem to be an important segment.
D) It *could* command a higher treatment price.

(IF the above presumptions were correct ENTA could grab a large slice of the HCV market)

The fact that Ed Gane was involved in the trial points towards it having legitimacy and potential.

ENTA's internal development in HCV consists of only one program: EDP-494, which has a different MoA—and a higher barrier to resistance—than any HCV drug on the market.

Note that the most profitable and successful treatment....sovaldi.... is generic now and has had it's patents challenged in courts by Merck, and in India and China.
Enta's is quite unique and wholly owned. What if it were a home run?

It won't cost ENTA much to find out if EDP-494 is a worthwhile addend to somebody's HCV regimen.

I haven't heard how the proof of concept was going. IF it were to be successful in mono-dosing, they could easily prove it with Sovaldi.

Frankly, they could also test it with ENTA's NS5a on niave noncirrhotics and possibly do a successful segment without partnering.
The optimal program would be partnered with a nuke.

Look at the interest generated by RG-101. Why? It had a high cure rate and a short treatment time. It turned out being placed on clinical hold. What if it had been successful?

Would this be so different?