Replies to post #2438 on Enanta Pharmaceuticals Inc (ENTA)

[DewDiligence]

Safety as a primary for dose ranging in this indication at this time is absurd.

Actually, it makes a lot of sense, IMO. ENTA could have run a larger two-dose trial, in which case it would have been doable to power each active arm for an efficacy endpoint. Clearly, ENTA decided that the lower cost and shorter time to complete a smaller trial outweighed the benefit of having a statisg outcome in a larger trial. Management is in a better position to assess this tradeoff than we are.

You seem to be taking the specification of safety as the primary endpoint too literally. This is simply the default characterization when a trial is not powered for an efficacy endpoint.

[vinmantoo]

This is why I believe it was a joke from the start. Safety as a primary for dose ranging in this indication at this time is absurd.

Jake, you have only made 14 posts, all since Nov 22, 2022, and all are negative comments about ENTA and EDP-235.you seem to always be so negative, dismissive and sure of yourself. I don't understand why. Dew answered this question so I don't have to.

Any comment on the animal trial data that indicates that EDP-235 protected other animals in the same cages from infection whereas Paxlovid didn't, or EDP-235 may possibly reduce Covid rebound that is seen with Paxlovid.

And on stat sig, unvax vs. vax: hope they enrolled in a third world country. There is just no chance. Not to mention seropositivity in the unvax pts!

ENTA has never asserted they would be able to generate statistically significant improvement with respect to health outcomes (hospitalization or death) in this phase 2 trial. As far as third world countries, there is certainly a need for oral anti-Covid treatments there. If FDA approval eventually comes for EDP-235, it could be the preferred option for the elderly and for people with health risks who take one or more drugs as EDP-235 doesn't require ritonavir to inhibit drug pumps.