Geo's point is well taken. The Hepc market is approx 10 bill moving upwards of 15 billion in all studies going forward. It is large and complex with varying types of the disease. Even smaller sections of the market would be huge for a company the size of PPHM whose product moa covers parts of that market difficult to treat.
In response to JR I think CP makes some good points. There are difficulties with non interferon products and interferon was used for a reason so an interferon "substitute" may be better than simply removing the interferon moa. Also, there are a lot of difficulties with oral products that are not present in injected products. There is a long way to go in clinical trials to prove efficacy with oral administered drugs. IMO ,i.e., I think VRUS is way overvalued and the market is beginning to look at that valuation as other competitors like Abbott announce their own product plans.
Roche seems to be covering the whole roulette wheel in its approach (its always good to have lots of money). IMO the Roche acquisition of ANDS at six times its recent low market valuation was for the "efficacy" shown by Septobruvir and has little to do with oral admin. (Roche has its own "oral" approach which may or may not combine well with Septo). Septo's results were in combo with "interferon" and ribavirin. There is a lot of testing and recombining of this drug to go if you remove the interferon component.
IMO only if Roche were willing to pay 320mm for the Septo "lock" they might (and I only suggest "might") be willing to pay for Bavi as an interferon substitute and "key" to that lock.
I have not seen any info yet from PPHM on the difficulties and or possibilities of administering Bavi in an oral form. I would like to learn more about that set of problems and or possibilities. Obviously it would behoove PPHM mgmt to address this question were they awake.
It will be an interesting view of mgmt's wisdom ( and here I include Garnick specifically)-- assuming the Bavi viral results are reasonably positive--to see what commercial results they can get. They understand the competitive nature of the Hepc field and they have chosen to spend scarce PPHM dollar resources in this area. So if Bavi viral results are good I would want to see some commercial result. Again, this is an area where SK has specifically said in public that he would like to license.
Ditto on the above paragraph for all other product lines going forward. This is not testing for testing sake. Mgmt is making a judgement not only that the tests have a reasonable chance of success but that clinical success can be translated to commercial success. This is why we hire guys like Garnick with bravado statements like "I also know how to kill a drug."
Ditto on the above two paragraphs specifically for Cotara. PPHM has spent a great deal of time and money in this field (as we know) and IMO does not have the resources to drive large multi year phase three studies both nationally and internationally by themselves. The time grows short to see if our resources were wisely spent or squandered, and to see what kind of commercial arrangements PPHM can make for Cotara with or without an SPA.
The time grows shorter and shorter to ask the old "Wendy's" question "Where's the beef?"
Best of luck and best regards,
RRdog
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
