[quoteThe bigger key is likely going to be how does the safety look in a much longer study?][/quote]
i couldn't agree more - that is the single most important differentiator for any PI following in the heels of telaprevir (in fact a PI with a tad less zip in terms of VL decay and better safety might even achieve better SVR if there are fewer dropouts/dose adjustments necessary)
as for partnering - as you say assessing safety is going to take alrger and longer studies - i.e. quite a bit of cash and risk. if i were licensing a PI now i would prioritize looking for a PI at comparable stage with other differentiating factors that are less important than safety but that you can identify upfront - e.g. better pk, potency, genotypic coverage - and then take the same risk on safety moving forward into larger trials
that's why i think idix went through 3 PI candidates before settling on one, it's why achn is hyping their follow on PI, and it is why i'm not so sure they wil get such great terms up front on 1625 unless there is a company chomping at the bit to run a combo trial and needs a PI asap
jmo
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
