it's always been the case that companies favor a point of view that suits their commercial enterprise, and the uncertainty surrounding future HCV therapy - particularly given how early we are in drug development and how many players are in the game - is highlighting this point most acutely. some examples:
1. vrtx doesn't think a nuke is necessary - their argument is a non-nuke has lower resistance but can still mop up the resistant variants from proteases and that is enough. convenient since they have a protease and now a non-nuke in development
2. idix thinks soc (or at least some component therof) will be eliminated in the future, but they think it will take a combination of 3 direct acting agents..interesting, they are one of the only companies with all 3 classes in late preclinical to clinical develoopment
3. zgen - they think interferon will remain the backbone of therapy for the foreseeable future - how convenient given lambda is a cornerstone of their pipeline
i could go on - clearly no one knows and one has to take what these companies say with a heavy grain of salt. personally i think all these drug classes will find their way into the treatment paradigm in some way or another - it's a heterogenous disease (and heterogenous pt population) that will require multiple options without a one size fits all (although when the smoke clears there probably will be some regimen that has dominant market share and becomes a megablockbuster)
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
