Replies to post #105801 on Biotech Values

[mcbio]

Re: Roche/Danoprevir

My gut feeling is Roche is pushing on with 7227. If Roche was to license another PI how long would that set the INFORM study back?

As an example, ACH-1625 has already entered Phase 2 trials. If Roche were to replace 7227 with ACH-1625, there would be a delay, but we're not talking about replacing 7227 with a PI that has yet to enter the clinic. I'd argue that it's better to incur some delay for a potentially much better drug than to plow ahead with a drug that has already shown some flaws and shortcomings.

Being first to market with a DAA, as soon as possible, is of the utmost importance considering a large majority of the warehoused patients in the U.S. will more than likely begin treatment with telaprevir and boceprevir plus SOC early next year.

I'm confident that there will still be a nice HCV market by the time ACH-1625 is ready for the market (assuming future trials are successful of course). I don't think the HCV market is going to quickly evaporate with the advent of telaprevir and boceprevir.

If Roche was done with 7227 they could have used that $175 million towards licensing PSI-7977 or IDX-184, gotten a nuke with QD dosing along with their pick of several PI's in development, and told Intermune to get lost.

Not true with respect to having their pick of PIs in development. As discussed on here before (#msg-55255861), Roche had an exclusivity deal with ITMN regarding HCV PIs and had to opt out of this arrangement before it could license an HCV PI from another company.