Replies to post #137383 on Biotech Values

[iwfal]

If your bet assumes INX-189 clears the safety hurdle I would be happy to take the other side of this wager.

This is intended to be a replication of BMY's 'wager'. And BMY didn't offer INHX a contingent 'Well, we'll pay you $2.5B if it passes safety hurdles'.

As for the rest:

INX-189 currently is the only viable drug in clinical development that stands the chance of being used as a monotherapy in all patients.

Curious why you think any single DAA is going to have a high rate of success in treatment of a chronic viral infection.

And for the record:

I think lambda will find it's place amongst oral non-responders which IMO will be a very small market.

I assume that this is a reference to dual DAAs - not triples or more? Yes? If so, I'd agree it is *possible* that a doublet DAAs will have >90% success in all major subgroups of naives sometime in the next 5 years - but I don't consider it a fait accompli. But if it is less than, say, 70% in some sizable subgroup and the addition of a low SAE interferon drives it up to 99% I think Lambda gets most of that subgroup of naives. Things I do NOT believe:

a) That lambda has any chance of making as much money as whatever DAA ends up on the top of the heap.

[oc631]

Just to clarify my position on INX-189. I feel BMY won't test INX-189 beyond the 200mg. dose, and it will be combined with their late stage NS5A, due to potential safety issues seen amongst the purine class. I still contend purine nukes are the only class which could be used as a monotherapy.