Replies to post #103662 on Biotech Values

[mcbio]

Re: IDX320/ACH-1625

This may be good news for ACH-1625. Viral load reduction @ 400mg for 320 appears to be less than that for 1625 @ 500 mg and 600 mg.

Although I took a big hit in my IDIX holdings today, I am starting to believe I may at least be able to take away a positive for ACHN. But, I don't think we should be focusing on potency of IDX320 vs. ACH-1625. I don't think it's apples-to-apples to begin with since you're talking about 400mg of IDX320 being less potent than 500/600mg of ACH-1625. That's not really a fair comparison. Rather, I'm focused more on the potential safety issues tied to 320. If 320 is indeed proven to be the culprit behind today's SAEs, I think we can probably strike 320 from the list of QD PIs available for partnering. To the best of my knowledge, that leaves ACH-1625 as the only QD HCV PI available for partnering. Now, I think it's pretty evident that ACHN won't be able to land a partner prior to obtaining positive Phase 2a results for 1625, so ACHN must still succeed on that front, but I do think today's IDIX news may indeed prove to be positive for ACHN. All IMHO.