Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

ANDS:

According to the table on slide 8, 3 on placebo achieved cEVR between weeks 10 and 12 raising the percentage from 54 to 71. If only a small percentage of the remaining 15 on placebo achieve cEVR then the placebo percentage would drop. That’s the CEO's argument.

I find it disingenuous for ANDS to claim that the three control-arm patients who went to undetectable virus during the final two weeks of the 12-week dosing period is a skewing effect or an artifact. To the contrary, the slopes of the two graphs in slide #7 strike me as being devoid of any artifacts; although the absolute rates of EVR are high, the slopes of the graphs are almost exactly what one would expect to see in this kind of trial.

Moreover, if you listened to the CC yesterday, you may have noted that the principal investigator altered an attending clinician’s observation of a moderate rash in one ANA598 200mg patient to a finding of mild rash. On the CC, ANDS’ CMO characterized this change as routine, but I’m not so sure.

Until I see evidence to the contrary, I reiterate the contention in #msg-47053147 that ANA598 is a drug with a narrow or non-existent therapeutic window. If I were a prospective partner, I would hold off on inking any deal until seeing the SVR data.