Replies to post #171452 on Biotech Values

[ciotera]

The bearish argument concerning ABBV/ENTA

The bearish argument against ABBV is that with these results they do not have a credible "natural" positioning strategy in the market and will need to compete more heavily on price. "SVR is king" story is not very differentiating against GILD any more. However, they could get creative in their contracting and go with "pay only for cures" or even "we'll pay for SOF+LED if the patient fails our regimen" strategies (which given their near perfect SVRs) would make financial sense (as long as those near perfect SVRs carry over to the real world). The point isn't to get to the market ahead of SOF+LED - the point is to get the patient ahead of SOF+LED because if you don't get the patient first, you don't get the patient at all. The battle lines for this category are shifting more and more into the pricing/contracting territory - highly unusual and interesting case in pharma. It'll be fun to watch.

[DewDiligence]

The bearish argument concerning ABBV/ENTA isn't the strong GILD results per se, but the idea the GILD combo may reach the GT1 market ahead of ABBV.

I disagree. Both regimens are expected to reach the market at about the same time.