Replies to post #36391 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

>…probably protease inhibitors in general more active/effective, at least in short term than polymerase inhib<

Dr Dieterich (see my previous post) calls protease inhibitors the sprinters of HCV treatment and polymerase inhibitors the marathoners.

[gofishmarko]

re: VX-950

>>> I think this statement is premature at this juncture. <<<

You're right , there is still a lot that can happen to change the fortunes of VX-950 and NM-283. I'm just projecting on the basis of data to date , and assuming that safety won't be an issue. Of the patients treated for 14 or 28 days , it looks to me like they'll end up with an SVR rate of 70 or 75 % at least , and I'm assuming that 3 months tx. duration will only add to that.

The issue of long-term suppression is only an issue to the extent that they haven't treated sufficient numbers of patients for the data to be convincing. The VX-950 tx. only occupied 2 weeks or 4 wks. of the 24 wk. period , the rest of the time was on SOC. I think 20 wks. on SOC , during which 24 out of 26 remained or became HCV-undetected , is demonstrative of the necessary suppression , if it holds up in larger trials.

I agree that combo therapy makes sense , but many docs won't do it until there is data to back it up. If VX-950 plus SOC gets 85% SVR in naives and NM-283 gets 60% SVR , everyone will want VX-950. Even moreso if the duration of tx. is only 3 or 6-months vs. 12.

Of course , it could turn out that riba gives a big boost to NM-283 results , which would change things dramatically. Again , I'm just speculating on the picture as I see it so far.