Replies to post #94314 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

Re: EASL consequential disclosures

I don't share ghmm's optimism with respect to ITMN-191. (And I wish I did given that ARRY would benefit from ITMN-191 success.) If it's becoming clear that the only way to resolve potential safety concerns with ITMN-191 is to utilize a lower dose that needs a booster, what's going to differentiate ITMN-191 in the clinic from much more potent and potentially safer PIs such as ACH-1625 and IDX320 that likely won't need a booster?

Agreed, and the same kind of rhetorical question can be asked about RG7128 and the other first-generation nukes (#msg-49115388).

[ghmm]

I don't share ghmm's optimism with respect to ITMN-191. ; ) (And I wish I did given that ARRY would benefit from ITMN-191 success.) If it's becoming clear that the only way to resolve potential safety concerns with ITMN-191 is to utilize a lower dose that needs a booster, what's going to differentiate ITMN-191 in the clinic from much more potent and potentially safer PIs such as ACH-1625 and IDX320 that likely won't need a booster?

Answer:

Roche :-)

Actually as I don't have much of a financial interest in HCV companies these days, I can state that I find it hard to like any one player in the whole field at this time :-). If I were to venture a guess at the market place 5 years from now I think it will be fragmented with each major pharma ( BI, J&J, Merck, Abbot, Gilead, Pfizer and Roche etc.) having a treatment option all providing +/- comparable efficacy some may be better for certain populations some my have more trade-offs in terms of duration/tolerability and of course some (Vertex/Merck) will have the "longevity" claim. From an investment standpoint I find it difficult to find a clear winner (for me investing in biotech I generally want a many fold return over a number of years; well that is the goal anyway :-) ). Not saying it won't happen like HIV and Gilead establishing itself just that it may take 10-20 years for that and it seems like a big gamble picking who at this stage for pretty low return (over ~10-20 years) to try and figure out. If I were to bet I would like to be tied to a bigger pharma who is established in the field (i.e. Roche/Merck or can give a competitive advantage). I know some invest for the shorter term and may be in and out before the drug(s) reach Phase 3 much less the commercial prospects are known and I have no idea how to invest like that!

I should note that this is all my opinion and I know very little about HCV/investing in HCV companies unlike many who post here with much more knowledge in those areas (another reason for me to stay away).