Replies to post #19103 on Biotech Values

[rfj1862]

PANC

Not impressed yet--their maturation inhibitor yielded barely a 1 log reduction in viral load. For comparison, TMC114, a new protease inhibitor, yields ~2 log reduction, even in multiple PI-experienced patients. Fuzeon yields a ~1.7-log reduction in viral load. In fact, you can get a ~0.6-0.7 log reduction in treatment experienced patients just by optimizing their treatment regimen.

I believe 1 log reduction is usually the primary end point in clinical trials of antiretroviral agents (I only have experience with PIs, so that may not be correct for other classes). Any drug that provides <1 log reduction in yield is DOA or will be relegated to last resort, so given that we're seeing 1.03 log reduction with the maturation inhibitor, it's an iffy prospect to say the least.

There is considerable skepticism in the industry about PANC's maturation inhibitor. They'll have to show better results in phase IIb for it to go anywhere. In order to be enthusiastic about the maturation inhibitor, I'd want to see >1 log reduction in viral loads and substantially better tolerability than current agents. They might be able to do it with a >200 mg dose, but I'm not holding my breath.

One positive: PANC's maturation inhibitor is not metabolized by CYP3A4, which means it could be relatively easily integrated into current treatment regimens.

Regarding the oral fusion inhbitor: too early. Plus PANC's market cap is crazy for a company with one iffy drug in phase IIb and a couple of drugs in preclinical--aside from the fact that the maturation inhibitor will be entering an extremely crowded market with a bunch of good drugs going off patent.

That's my view--would be interested to hear the positive case. I understand that an entirely new class would extend treatment options, but frankly HIV is already considered a chronic disease becuase many patients are living a relatively normal lifespan even with today's treatments. I am not saying that PANC's maturation inhibitor does not have the potential to be a good thing, I'm just saying that the investment case, in my view, is weak. Particularly given the $400 million market cap.

John