Replies to post #84251 on Biotech Values

[mcbio]

Re: ACH-1625 Phase 1a results

Inasmuch as the phase-1a portion of the study tested subjects for only 5 days, I think it’s too early to say that ACH-1625 will have a clean safety profile.

I totally agree, but I just wanted to make sure this was a case of "so far, so good." I think that's safe to assume with the caveat that there's a long way to go of course.

I just think that every step of the clinical road for ACH-1625 is so critical given that ACHN is almost entirely dependent upon the success of ACH-1625 coupled with the fact that any such success should be quite material to the valuation of the stock going forward given the tiny sub-$50 million market cap for ACHN. Although I realize that the Phase 1b data due early next year is the real critical early stage data, I was still disappointed to see the market effectively yawn at the Phase 1a data release.

That’s unclear, IMO. ACHN appears to be playing its cards close to the vest; however, it’s worth noting that the cumulative daily doses of Telaprevir and Boceprevir being tested in phase-3 are 2250mg and 2400mg, respectively.

Thanks for the info on the Telaprevir and Boceprevir daily dosage numbers as I did not know those off the top of my head. Assuming that ACH-1625 is as advertised being a next generation HCV PI which is much more potent than Telaprevir and Boceprevir, I would imagine that the daily doses of ACH-1625 in HCV-infected will be much smaller than Telaprevir and Boceprevir. But, you're right, ACHN is playing their cards close to the vest and has yet to announce what doses will be tested in HCV-infected patients.