Biotech Values

[mcbio]

BMS-094 (f/k/a INX-189, a/k/a BMS-986094) is in trouble, according to Nathan Sadeghi-Nejad:

www.thestreet.com/story/11523381/1/bristol-myers-missing-hep-c-data-raises-red-flags-may-boost-gilead-idenix.html

Comments from anyone? (My most recent post on this drug is in #msg-72304518, FWIW.)

Very interesting article, though I don't get why this is potentially bullish for IDX-184. Nathan references the lackluster efficacy criticisms of 184 without, IMHO, a convincing argument otherwise on that point. But, perhaps BMY would be interested in the earlier-stage IDIX nukes if there are indeed issues with BMS-094.

I would say that if BMS-094's only path forward is at sub-optimal dose for potency, then I would tend to think they may have to pair the drug with their NS5A inhibitor and probably a PI as well (especially if ribavirin is later eliminated). I risk talking my book with Medivir but that's potentially good news for Medivir (again, they are doing trials with TMC435+daclatasvir) or for ACHN. The questions will of course be there as to how competitive such a combo will be with GILD's ultimate combo.

If BMS-094 is ultimately shelved, perhaps BMY would be interested in an earlier-stage IDIX nuke or perhaps BMY would take a look at the very early-stage BCRX nuke or the similar early-stage unpartnered Medivir nuke. The issue of course is that these are all well behind in development.