As of AEs, 378 definitely had higher grade 1/2 AEs, but look at the number, grade 3/4 AEs aren't that much different. Also take consideration 378 are tested in wider population, pushed the dose higher, probably with more experience managing dose reduction, it would improve tolerability overall - in general drugs tested in larger population show lower efficacy and more safety issues. As of response rate, 378 used confirmed PR/CR in recent report, 113 didn't which is fine for ph1 dose escalation trial - look at the poster, if you exclude 4 unconfirmed PR even including 5 PR waiting for confirmation, response rate would be much lower. Overall, I can't say one is definitely better than the other at this moment. This is how I look at any company. I don't mind upside surprise to my estimation, but don't like over estimation on my part.
As of why I took larger position in ARIA, it is mainly valuation, $3B vs $4B makes big difference to me. At $4B, it takes significant 1st line CML usage in consideration; at $3B, even with limited 1st line usage, it isn't over valued as many contend, with potential in other indications as upside. As of EPIC, I am fairly confident its success at this point. It widened CV exclusion criteria earlier this year, plus with safety concern - silver lining actually - they would be more diligent in managing dose reduction etc. In PACE, dose reduction was quite frequent even for CP patients. Since Iclusig approval, it has pretty much played as I expected even during bio bull market. Iclusig is a long term story, won't resolve quickly. In relatively crowded market like CML when there are well established players, Iclusig won't take over as quickly as many hoped even with superior efficacy. It takes time! On the other hand, 113 will be short term story for now.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
