Replies to post #103691 on Biotech Values

[mcbio]

Re: IDIX CC

The way I see it there are three outcomes and these are from best to worst for IDIX

1-The SAE's are a result of a drug interaction problem. The proposed combo is dropped.

2-The SAE's are from IDX320 and the PI is dropped along with the combo with IDX184.

3-The SAE's are from IDX184 (least likely by the way) and the nuke is dropped along with the combo with IDX320. Being that IDX184 is their most advanced HCV candidate it would be the biggest loss. I find greater value in the nuke class going forward to which I'm sure you disagree.

I just listened to the CC and also agree with Dew that there was no reference to any safety issues with the 3 day IDX320 monotherapy trial. Based on the responses from J.P., I got the impression that IDIX believes that your first outcome is the likely outcome. I believe at one point towards the end that J.P. indicated that he believes the SAEs may have arose due to some drug-drug interaction between 184 and 320 and that's why the pending monkey tox combo study for the two drugs is critical. (On that note, I will say I'm surprised that such pre-clinical tests weren't done before the DDI study in humans just to flesh out any side effect issues from the combo, but I guess hindsight is 20/20.) Management was pretty clear that the safety to date for 184 and 320 individually in humans has been good. So, presumably these two drugs, especially 184 given the more advanced safety data in humans, still have a future individually. Management did allude to hoping to re-initiate both drug programs again individually, so I imagine they are resigned to the fact that a 184/320 combo is dead. Nonetheless, at just over a $200M market cap now, I'm more than willing to take the bet that at least one of 184 or 320 individually still has a future.

I clearly agree that 184 is more consequential to IDIX right now given that it is much more advanced compared to 320 and that's why it's critical that IDIX be able to demonstrate to the FDA and prospective partners that it's not 184 that is the issue here, but that it's either the 184/320 combo or 320 alone.

[DewDiligence]

I find greater value in the nuke class…

You’ve expressed this repeatedly, so anyone who follows the HCV threads on this board presumably knows your viewpoint by now.

I like the nuke class too, but I think you’re letting your stake in the nuke-oriented VRUS lead you to blame every HCV shortcoming on one of the other drug classes even when the evidence for such blame is not well-founded. The discussion of IDIX’s DDI study is a case in point; on today’s CC, you seemed to hear what you wanted to hear (that IDX320 had a safety problem as monotherapy) rather than what was actually said (that no safety problem with IDX320 monotherapy had occurred).

I’ll think you’ll find that you can get more out of this message board if you try to be a little more objective in your analysis.

[turtlepower]

As a layman I would argue that 2) is a better outcome that 1) since if 1) were to be true Idenix will likely have a hard time partnering with companies looking to combine treatments. If 320 was the sole culprit then obviously 184 will be in the clear and could be partnered at some point. Else companies will likely be nervous about both 184 and 320 since combo treatments are the future.

Actually the best outcome is that all 3 SAE's were caused by external factors and not by any of the 3 factors you wrote about but perhaps the likelihood of that is tiny.