Replies to post #139904 on Biotech Values

[ciotera]

stopped short when PSI-7977 results were announced

This would make sense only if practicing physicians and HCV infected patients are actually aware and pinning their hopes to Phase 2 programs in HCV. The fact is that most of them are not and majority of community treaters are still sceptical that IFN can ever be removed (yes, even in light of solid evidence from trials with 20 or so patients). Which does make sense in a way - the universe of physicians treating HCV isn't as "integrated" as HIV or Oncology, so EASL results next week are primarily of interest to experts/academics, analysts, and investors. News/adoption takes longer time to travel in this category. Partly because the disease itself isn't as "pressing" of a concern.. there are often other things wrong with these patients that physicians prioritize over the long term risk of liver fibrosis and HCC. So, the 2nd wave of warehousing that everyone now talks about in my opinioin is as big of a hype as the first.

Internationally governments that subsidize HCV treatment..

Sure, they can save a bunch of money in the long term... I personally think that VRTX and MRK are undercharging even in the US for the benefit that they bring (vs. say HIV or HBV drugs). So in effect they've set a low price tag on what a "cure" costs and now others will have to work within these unfavorable economics. But I think people are overestimating the urgency of HCV in the eyes of the governments in the developing world where most of the opportunity is. The fact is, China hasn't even embraced Peg-IFN yet and is heavily relying on traditional medicine, India will likely force compulsory licensing like with Nexavar, Russia is too corrupt, and I'm sure there are some problems with Brazil too - there goes the house made of BRICs :) I'm being facetious, but my point is there are a lot of higher priorities in those countries than saving money long-term from getting HCV under control.

Does it matter if 170 million patients seems overblown

Yes, it does matter because decision are being made on grossly over-inflated numbers resulting in ridiculous valuations.

Safety could derail either program

Same goes for GILD's programs.. all we know so far is based on 20 patients. Another reason to diversify the risk by getting into as many collaborations as possible so that you don't find your entire program dead in the water because one of the components has a safety issue.