Re: MRK’s disingenuous re-definition of null responder
We will see what they report at AASLD.
You can see for yourself that MRK’s RESPOND-2 study excluded null responders according to the way this term is conventionally defined to refer to how a patient responded to a prior course of therapy. 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
MRK has stated that they consider 25% of the patients in RESPOND-2 to be “null responders” based on their lack of a 1-log viral-load decline during the 4-week SoC lead-in period in RESPOND-2 itself rather than how the patients responded during a prior course of therapy. This is a disingenuous re-definition of null responder that is substantially different from how the term is used by VRTX and the rest of the HCV industry.
“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.