Replies to post #140520 on Biotech Values

[iwfal]

In light of this uncertainty, it makes sense that BMY continues to invest in lambda

Yep - as long as there is still uncertainty about DAA's being the complete cure for all patients by about 2016 then it makes sense to invest in lambda. The uncertainty about 'SVR validity' and whether 'all viral-loads=0 are the same' are ones I have brought up before. As is the more obvious possibility that there are subgroups with less than, say, 85 pct cure rate using DAAs (and that still looks possible). Or variants of the above - e.g. that with lambda it is possible to use a 12 week regimen, but with all-DAAs a 24 week regimen is required. It is even possible that some DAAs regimens may have less tolerable side effects than lambda. How many DAAs are floating out there now? 40? 50? I'd make a wager than lambda does as well as or better (gets >=$) in 2017 than the 80% of the DAAs still in trials right now.

On a somewhat separate note - has anyone done a calculation on how fast the backlog of HCV patients is clearing out with telaprevir etc?

[oc631]

In light of this uncertainty, it makes sense that BMY continues to invest in lambda.

Any idea why they canceled this study?




http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01447394