COCP makes sense to me because if you want to win in the HCV market you have to be better than GILD. Not equal but better. Because it is difficult to gain market share in an entrenched market if you are equal but if you are better it is very doable. And I think COCP is the only company that has the potential to be the winner and companies will start to realize that.
The big risk here is that it is too early. But if you looked at their presentation their NUC seems very promising. It is very potent and it does not seem to have much effect on gamma DNA polymerase in the mitochondria. As you know, the dreaded side effect of a NUC is mitochondria side effect which can lead to various bad outcomes and the preclinical data looks very good. The helicase inhibitor is a new class and we will have to see how it plays out. Experience in drug development is also very important and I do think the people involved in the development of these drugs is the best there is out there.
You need to remember that drug COCP will likely be bought before they are ready for filing approval. Also remember that these HCV studies have very fast enrollments and that they are short. So once you enter into phase 1, it rapidly transitions to phase 2a/b and then it gets noticed and bought. Phase 3s and regulatory filing takes much more time but I do not think $COCP will be doing that job. Just my opinion.
What you need to remember is entrenched markets can be overcome if there is a true differentiating factor in What you need to remember is entrenched markets can be overcome if there is a true differentiating factor in the new product. Look how Tenofovir became the clear market leader when Abacavir was the clear market leader based on the (D:A:D: safety data, ACTG 5202 showing the tenofovir seems to be more potent, etc). 12 weeks to 8 weeks isn't a big differentiating factor. 12 weeks to 6 weeks I can see people starting to use the 6 week regimen. But if you are able to come up with a 2~4 week regimen I do think most people will use the shorter regimen. So the question is how do we get there. The studies all suggest it is through combining regimens that have a different mechanism of action and a potent NUC seems to be the back bone of these treatment options. That is why ABBV can never win. The value of $cocp lies in the fact that it is the only company that has the potential to achieve such a short duration.
There were two companies in early 2014 that had a NUC in development after the Inhibitex mess. They were ACHN and IDIX. ACHN did not pay attention to there NUC back then and was really touting the PI and NS5A inhibitor that they had in their presentations. IDIX was putting a lot of effort into their NUC. ABBV was focusing on a non-NUC single table regimen. Many in the HCV community knew the importance of a NUC backbone when the PSI-7977 (sofosbuvir) data kept on coming out. The SVR rates and side effect profile were consistently equal or superior to other regimens. It made much sense to own an NUC company and I thought IDIX was the way to go because their strategy made sense.