Biotech Values

[mcbio]

Re: IDIX-culprit of 184/320 SAEs

As a layman I would argue that 2) is a better outcome that 1) since if 1) were to be true Idenix will likely have a hard time partnering with companies looking to combine treatments. If 320 was the sole culprit then obviously 184 will be in the clear and could be partnered at some point. Else companies will likely be nervous about both 184 and 320 since combo treatments are the future.

I'm kind of going back and forth on whether I view 1 or 2 as the better outcome. Initially, I was thinking 2 was the likely outcome and the better outcome for the points you cite and also for the simple fact that 320 is much earlier stage than 184 and may be able to be effectively replaced by IDIX's own NS5A inhibitor, thus still affording IDIX a shot at its own HCV DAA. After listening to the CC, management sounds pretty confident that 1 is the likely outcome. If so, the key is whether or not IDIX can show that the side effects are very specific to just a 184/320 combo, thus leaving both 184 and 320 in play to be partnered with another big pharma for insertion into their own HCV DAA combo. The risk in the first outcome is that it's an all or nothing outcome. Either 184 and 320 are both able to be individually and separately partnered with another big pharma's HCV DAA combo or neither are.

Actually the best outcome is that all 3 SAE's were caused by external factors and not by any of the 3 factors you wrote about but perhaps the likelihood of that is tiny.

I think that is the best outcome but I also agree that the likelihood is tiny. The PR did indicate that IDIX is going to go back and get additional information on the 3 patients who experienced SAEs after they left the clinic to see if these patients had HIV, hepatitis, alcohol, or medication that can be linked to the SAEs.