added ENTA and FGEN, started MNTA and ESPR
ENTA - AASLD abstract out next thurs - top line in GT1 already out but the market often never fully factors in the news. Also non-GT1 data are likely to be good based on comments from ABBV as well as testing of GT3 (the hardest non-GT1) in 8 weeks on clnicaltrials site (implying good 12 week data)
risks are the competition - specifically 3DAA combos from GILD and MRK that can shorten duration to as little as 6 weeks. Net i think good GT3 data for ENTA outweighs potential strong 6 week data in GT1 for competitors as it opens a whole new market for ABBV/ENTA
FGEN - anticipated publications near term for roxa and CTGF mAb. The former was mentioned to come out w an editorial comment so likely to be a high profile publication
risks - safety issue in ongoing trial, or even one that pops up in publication (lwo likelihood since data was vetted by 2 large pharmas prior to ph 3 but still never know for sure
MNTA - not much higher than pre-copaxone approval
ESPR - i thought the data was solid and could be used first line commercially prior to PCSK-9 inhibitors. i can see a pharma rolling the dice and partnering on this
common theme to all is that they also shouldn't be too affected by pricing concerns that triggered the current selloff. MNTA is more a generics company than branded, although they have NME in development too (and if pricing for branded is pressured then pricing they see is pressured as well since discounted relative to branded). FGEN could provide cheaper option than ESA/IV iron. ENTA is providing HCV at a discount to market leader. ESPR would price drug at discount to PCSK9
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
