"PSI-7977 has been tested on GT1 patients throughout its development..."
Vnfin, your statement leads me to believe that Pharmassset should have a good idea of what their SVR (cure rate) is usingPSI-7977 on GT1 patients. If PSI-7977 has an impressive SVR with hard to treat GT1 patients, then why do they place so much emphasis on GT2/GT3 patients? Especially when these easier to treat GT2/GT3 patients are a minority of the HCV patients in the U.S.? And why are they spreading misinformation about most patients being unable to tolerate interferon?
"...88% of veterans who have HCV infection have not been treated. And again, a majority of those are because they are ineligible for interferon therapy." -- M. Michelle Berrey (from recent VRUS conference call)
And why do they make statements such as:
"With respect to competitiveness clearly an interferon free regimen, any SVR is actually a significant improvement." -- Patrick T. Higgins (from recent VRUS conference call)
To me, this indicates they have an inferior cure rate for GT1 patients but they are going to try to compete against Incivek with their inferior product anyway. "any SVR" is not a significant improvement when you are asking tens of thousands of dollars for a drug with a lower cure rate than the current Incivek based standard of care.