Replies to post #63339 on Biotech Values

[tinkershaw]

True, SVR12 is less predictable of SVR in this group of patients. However, with a range of figures from 41-73% for prior treatment failure patients, it is almost certain that the final SVR is going to be materially higher than that linked to in your post 26290780, at least in the relapser group, the number is likely to remain very high. It would seem in this study patients had already gone through the treatment, knew what to expect, and were determined to see it through. I would suspect a lower level of drop outs to help account for the higher SVR12 results than even seen in Prove 2 (this without utilizing the 8 week determination).

The omission of RVR may be an oversight, but not likely given VRTX's usual method of pushing anything positive out.

So it appears to me, as to what I understand to be the most numerous group of prior failure patients, SVR numbers in excess of your 85% Prove 3 approval number of 30% I believe, will almost certainly shatter this number. The other 2 arms will be much closer. Either way, the numbers should exceed what anyone was expecting. I was expecting 35-45% SVR.

Tinker

[DewDiligence]

Correction to msg #63339: the third paragraph of my annotations at the top should read:

“The table below breaks down the data according to whether a patient had a non-response (hardest to retreat), viral breakthrough (intermediate), or relapse (easiest to retreat) in the first-line setting.”

In the original post, it erroneously said that viral breakthroughs were easier to retreat than relapses.


Let’s talk biotech!
“The efficient-market hypothesis may be
the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated
in any area of human knowledge!”

[ThomasS]

VRTX: I agree with your analysis, despite my vested interest :)