InvestorsHub Logo
Post# of 253503
Next 10
Followers 839
Posts 120650
Boards Moderated 13
Alias Born 09/05/2002

Re: mcbio post# 103674

Tuesday, 09/07/2010 6:51:25 PM

Tuesday, September 07, 2010 6:51:25 PM

Post# of 253503

I think I misunderstood the 184/320 DDI trial design.

No problem—I think oc631 did also, judging from his posts. To be clear: all patients in the DDI study who received either IDX184 or IDX320 received both drugs together for one of the two study weeks.

…it's probably not a great stretch to think that a safety issue could crop up when moving from 3 days to 14 days. All told, if IDIX can pin down 320 as being the culprit behind the SAEs, I feel pretty good about the chances of ultimately rebounding from today's fall.

Agreed that IDX184 is less likely to be culpable than IDX320, but I think it’s too soon to say that IDX184 is in the clear. There have been several HCV cases from various drug classes that turned up safety problems when well into phase-2; ITMN-191 is one such instance.

“The efficient-market hypothesis may be
the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated
in any area of human knowledge!”

Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

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.