Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
AI Subscribe Login/Register account icon
S&P 500
6,556.98
(
-0.36%
)
US TECH 100
23,427.72
(
-0.39%
)
Dow Jones
46,151.67
(
-0.12%
)
Brent Oil
101.07
(
4.42%
)
Bitcoin
69,253.00
(
-2.32%
)
News Focus
News Focus

Replies to post #173560 on Biotech Values

Replies to #173560 on Biotech Values
icon url

biotech_researcher

01/31/14 12:07 PM

#173563 RE: marthambles #173560

Now, that explains the slight pull back in ENTA. This will probably make for an interesting show (actually, marketing battle) for market share in 2015.
icon url

bladerunner1717

01/31/14 1:06 PM

#173566 RE: marthambles #173560

re: ENTA

What's wrong with Karnauskas' analysis?


Bladerunner
icon url

DewDiligence

01/31/14 2:50 PM

#173570 RE: marthambles #173560

ABBV/ENTA/GILD—Robyn Karnauskas of Deutsche Bank seems to have things backwards with respect to ribavirin necessity. Based on the PEARL-2 data released today (see table at link in #msg-96615816), ABBV/ENTA are the ones who appear to have an edge vis-à-vis ribavirin usage in treatment-experienced GT1b patients. Specifically, the non-ribavirin arm of PEARL-2 had an SVR12 rate of 100%, while the non-ribavirin arm of GILD’s ION-2 trial (treatment-experienced GT1a/GT1b; no breakdown by genotype subtype) had an SVR12 rate of 93.6%.

Even giving GILD the benefit of the doubt by assuming that the ION-2 GT1b data are better than the ION-2 blended data for GT1a/GT1b, GILD’s data in treatment-experienced GT1b can’t possibly be better than ABBV/ENTA’s data and they are probably somewhat worse.