Replies to post #106341 on Biotech Values

[mcbio]

Re: Roche/Danoprevir/ACHN/IDIX/VRUS

(VRUS/ACHN/IDIX/etc.)—Roche’s CC comments are evidence (IMO) that the impetus for Roche’s paying $175M to terminate the ITMN HCV collaboration was not developing Danoprevir (ITMN-191), but rather was being free of the contractual constraints of the ITMN collaboration:

seekingalpha.com/article/230129-roche-holdings-ceo-discusses-q3-2010-results-earnings-call-transcript
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are very happy to have both the danoprevir rights from InterMune, because very importantly, of course it gives us access to this important new treatment therapy, but importantly it gives us freedom to operate in combining Pegasys with all antiviral agents for the treatment of Hepatitis C. So we have total freedom to operate, and certainly we expect great positive impact on Pegasys.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated on numerous occasions, I do not expect ITMN-191 to make it to market or even to advance to phase-3.

Bingo. Thanks Dew. I'm certainly agreeing with you based on that language that we can expect Roche to be looking elsewhere for other HCV drugs to combine with Pegasys. If Roche intends to license another HCV PI, then this news is potentially quite positive for ACHN or possibly IDIX (assuming IDX320 is off clinical hold soon and its reputation is not otherwise considered damaged from the hold). If Roche intends to go the nuke-nuke route, then this news likely bodes well for VRUS or IDIX.

[ghmm]

Might Roche have wanted to get out of the exclusivity for more immediate reasons? Specifically I was wondering if they would consider some sort of marketing deal with Vertex where they push Pegasys instead of PEG-Intron... I still remain in the camp that Danoprevir's still alive ;-).