Addendum re the Boceprevir RESPOND-2 study in the second-line setting: In the prologue of #msg-52949888, I said:
…the Boceprevir RESPOND-2 study may have had an easier-to-treat patient pool than the Telaprevir PROVE-3 study in terms of the proportion of patients who were relapsers vs non-responders during prior treatment; VRTX disclosed the relapser-vs-non-responder breakdown from PROVE-3 in #msg-48759554, but MRK is refusing to disclose the breakdown from RESPOND-2 until the full dataset is presented at AASLD.
I was being too gentle on MRK by using the word may in the above passage. Based on the eligibility requirements for RESPOND-2, it’s clear that RESPOND-2 did in fact have an easier-to-treat patient pool than VRTX’s PROVE-3 study. From the clinicaltrials.gov entry for RESPOND-2:
• Qualifying regimen defined as peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin or peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin for a minimum of 12 weeks.
• During qualifying regimen, subjects must have either a documented undetectable HCV-RNA within 30 days of end of treatment (EOT) and a subsequent detectable HCV-RNA during follow-up or a documented decline in HCV-RNA by >=2 log10 by Treatment Week 12
In other words, so-called null responders during first-line therapy were ineligible for enrollment in RESPOND-2.
MRK’s assertion that 25% of the patients in RESPOND-2 are considered null responders based on their lack of a 1-log viral-load decline during the 4-week SoC lead-in period in RESPOND-2 is therefore nothing but spin, IMO.
“The efficient-market hypothesis may be the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated in any area of human knowledge!”
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.