InvestorsHub Logo
Post# of 252938
Next 10
Followers 837
Posts 120316
Boards Moderated 18
Alias Born 09/05/2002

Re: mcbio post# 104241

Tuesday, 09/14/2010 10:20:45 PM

Tuesday, September 14, 2010 10:20:45 PM

Post# of 252938

…do you see any chance that IDIX can convince the FDA of allowing it to move forward in testing 320, either alone or even with 184, at a much smaller dose like 100mg QD?

I think the answer is probably no. At this point, IDIX’s contention that the two SAE’s were probably caused by an intracellular drug-drug interaction is the only explanation I would elevate to the status of a bona fide hypothesis. However, the FDA is not going to accept IDIX’s explanation by default just because a more plausible hypothesis is not available. Rather, I presume that IDIX will have to demonstrate the validity of the intracellular DDI hypothesis with hard data from the new animal-tox study in order to get the clinical hold lifted.

From a practical standpoint, I’m not sure a partial lifting of the clinical hold on IDX320 along the lines you suggested would be a great outcome for investors. As long as there’s a partial clinical hold, investors—and prospective partners—are apt to treat the drug in question as damaged goods. All told, I think it’s probably better for investors if the company aims for a full release of the clinical hold before pouring more money into the program.

“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.