Bruce Givens as a medical professional should know better than to compare human and nhp studies. The 3mg 4mg human studies are blinded. There's aways a possibility that the investigator leaks intern results but any release of this information tarnishes the study.
End2war, as I recall those comments came after the 2mg results. I suspect that comment was not very well thought out as he was trying to do damage control. Also what exactly does the "middle of the ascending curve" mean? It's a vague statement without any real measurements or parameters. The market responded the way it did because the 2mg KD declined in growth compared with 1mg. Look at Dr. Givens track record and Encivise. He's made misleading statements during his tenure there and where is Encisive now. Someone should ask him to clarify those comments at next cc.
Think, you are absolutely correct that growth is not linear. However, you are not correct in how the curve moves. I work in biotech and I've looked and studied many many Kaplan Meyer efficacy curves. They ALL look the same.....a smooth curve that starts off vertically and ends horizontallly. If Arc520 was 15%Kd 1mg and 35%kd 2mg, that would be a promising looking curve. That would show that 3mg is still on the ascending part of the curve. Howevee, 31% 1mg and 51% 2mg doesn't look as good. It looks like it's starting to decline. 2 data points is not enough to make an accurate prediction but the market and I are concerned about the same thing. What I can tell you is that Hparch and hbv are flat out wrong in their assumption of a linear growth. FLAT WRONG. As a someone with some knowledge in pharmacology I feel it is my duty to call out these pseudo scientists. By the way, look at Dirk's postings. He's prepping everyone for a less than anticipated KD at 3mg and 4mg
Let's assume max dose is 4mg. In every dose curve of every drug ever developed, there is a tapering of benefits as we get to the max dose. Because there's a 39% improvement in 0-1mg and a 31% improvement in 1-2mg shows that the tapering effect is likely starting. Hparch wants you to believe that the 31% improvement will continue all the way up to the max dose. Pharmcology doesn't work that way. At 39% to 30% to 19% to 8% is more indicative of a true dose curve
My rational for predicting 3mg and 4mg is simple. I drew a smooth curve from 0mg to 1mg to 2mg and approximated 3mg and 4mg.
Why did 0-1mg show 51% improvement and 1-2mg only show 31% improvement? Could the effect be tapering off? Enough with the pseudoscience Hparch. You don't know what you're talking about
I cringe when you use fuzzy math to prove your agenda. A 31% increase from 1 to 2mg means you'll continue to see that same jump at 3mg and 4mg? Did you forget the 51% jump from 0mg to 1mg?
Then why is Hparch saying 4mg will get an 89%Kd? That's not what a dose curve looks like. At higher does you see a tapering effect
One more point. S curves are smooth not jagged. If you plot out a curve from 0mg to 1mg to 2mg, the dose curve shows the drug to begin to flatten out around 3mg maybe 4mg. According to the limited data points 3mg will show 60%KD and 4mg might show 65%KD
I'm sorry Hparch but I always cringe when I see these postings on dose curves. You science is completely inaccurate. A dose repose curve is an S shape. The bottom of the S is where a small dose elicits a small response. The middle part of that S is almost vertical meaning the dose is triggering a significant response. The top part of the S is horizontal indicating that no matter how much drug you give you will not achieve more effect. Hparch you are misleading everyone by saying higher doses continue to provide more benefit. At some point more arc520 will not provide any more benefit. The reason why arwr is $6 share is that some believe 1-2mg is the middle of the ascending curve and that between 3-4mg is where the drug peaks out