The biggest potential upside from the ABT-493 + ABT-530 combination is that it may work for any HCV genotype rather than GT1 only. If it pans out, this combination would have an edge relative to GILD’s Sovaldi + Ledipasvir, which doesn’t work in GT3.*
The other advantages you enumerated for ABT-493 + ABT-530—including, for instance, longer-running patent protection compared to ABBV/ENTA’s 3-DAA regimen—are also significant. However, one major benefit to ENTA that you neglected to mention is that the royalties (or profit share if ENTA opts in) will be larger when ENTA’s drug (ABT-493 in this instance) is part of a 2-DAA regimen rather than a 3-DAA regimen.
Great question. I think a likely outcome is that the FDA label permits 8-week dosing for treatment-naïve non-cirrhotic patients but also cites 12-week dosing as an option for such patients, leaving the choice up to the patient and physician.
Note that the EMA may have its own view on 8-week dosing.
If the FDA were to reject 8-week dosing outright, it would actually make GILD’s pricing strategy simpler, IMO, by allowing GILD to treat all GT1 patients at the same price. Under the single-duration framework for GT1, the price for 12w of Sovaldi + Ledipasvir would presumably be lower than the price for 12w of Sovaldi + Ledipasvir under the dual-duration framework, but the aggregate revenue for GILD from all GT1 patients would probably be larger.
*GILD is testing the Sovaldi + GS-5816 combination in phase-2 trials for GT1 and GT3 patients to see if it can be the hoped-for single regimen that works in all genotypes.