I think they are strong and important for ENTA in several respects:
1. It provides some cover commercially if GILD is successful in phase 3 without ribavirin, particularly in the EU which is more price sensitive and which just happens to have a predominance of 1b patients (i.e. if GILD has an effective regimen without rib for 1a patients that is a big sales pitch relative to abbv. something they won't have for 1bs if PEARL 2/3 have good efficacy, which is highly probable now IMO)
2. it not only suggests they will probably succeed in ph3 in japan and will be competitive there, but as has been posted before this equates to higher royalties since their drug is 50% of the cocktail
3. if PEARL 1 can replicate these numbers (invariably the 100% on treatment in naives will come down since some naives behave like nulls - just have never received prior treatment), I am sure this will extend to treatment for 1b patients in other territories - again upping the royalty to ENTA
lastly, and I may be stretching here, but I think ENTA can argue that ABT-333 doesn't contribute equally to efficacy period. The AVIATOR data suggested as much with SVRs without ABT-333 that were solid even in gen-1As, but this doesn't hurt that argument either
I also think that it is clear ABT-450 is a better drug than most on this board thought. While it does require boosting for QD dosing, it can hang with "second gen" PIs like simeprevir and MK-5172 in terms of efficacy (even though the latter has broader genoypic coverage)
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
