Replies to post #85620 on Biotech Values

[mouton29]

<<the HCV landscape now 3 years later has changed so much that it no longer makes much sense imo to bring 184, a more potent version of nm-283, forward>>

I'm not sure I followed your reasoning completely, it seems to me you were really saying, it no longer makes sense to bring 184 forward as a single agent , rather, it should be brought forward as part of a combination therapy, and NVS is not a suitable partner to do that.

[DewDiligence]

IDIX NVS:

…it's kind of tough to negotiate a big partnership when all you have is 3-day data and less than a log efficacy [because the drug has not yet reached steady-state accumulation during three days of dosing]

I agree with the above and I’m pretty sure the companies’ original plan was to have some interim combination data available during NVS’ 90-day decision-making window for IDX184 (see #msg-35708524). However, the schedule for the combination study slipped, which forced NVS to make its decision based on only the 3-day monotherapy data.

[DewDiligence]

…184, a more potent version of nm283…

IDX184 is not a more potent version of NM283. NM283 was a simple nucleoside analog, while IDX184 is a prodrug of a monophosphate nucleotide—the same molecular structure as Viread (#msg-43114117, #msg-26915921, #msg-42396728, #msg-37926378).