Biotech Values

[mcbio]

Statistically sigficant is very meaningfully.

I don't think the PR specified a stat sig improvement.

These aren't phase 3 trials where you have two arms with single treatment duration 26 weeks or 52 weeks for each arm. These are two complicated 2-way crossover trials with treatment duration of 12 weeks where both lispro-PH20 and aspart-PH20 were compared to lispro. This is what important for this type of trial: "Both trials met the primary endpoint of non-inferiority of HbA1C compared to the insulin analog comparator, with superior reductions in post-prandial glucose excursions in the PH20 insulin analog arms."

Appreciate the response jq. Do you view this news for HALO's analog as bullish, bearish, or neutral for BIOD and its potentially improved analog? Bullish in the sense that this provides at least some preliminary clinical PoC that the existing analogs can be improved upon? Bearish in the sense that these results are specific to BIOD's director competitor and not BIOD itself? Neutral in the sense, as we discussed before, that the HALO and BIOD approaches aren't necessarily directly competitive in that they are different? I tend to lean toward the latter in terms of impact on BIOD but perhaps there are elements of all three.

If it is indeed Humalog that BIOD is essentially trying to improve upon, I would think LLY might be more inclined to partner with BIOD since I would think that LLY might be more interested in a potentially better version of their own drug than an entirely new drug altogether. (This is assuming that LLY thinks Humalog needs to be, and can be, improved upon. I would think they would at least think the former given that Humalog is set to go generic in a few years.) That said, perhaps the fact that HALO is further along than BIOD and now has at least some clinical PoC would make them more interesting to LLY.