valuation model, page-7

d
nothing wrong with an nnrti in the right setting, and the idenix drug is a small dose once a day...

but two nrti are the ongoing core of anti-retroviral therapy for a reason... efficacy, high barrier to resistance and low side effects for the good ones...3tc, ftc and tdf

and ATC appears to have better efficacy in some common resistant populations, a higher barrier to resistance, and

something that is perhaps more important for ATC but infrequently menitioned, very little side effects including virtually no mitochondrial toxicity (which can lead to all sorts of problems from the older nrti), lipidotrophy (fat accumulation and wasting) or osteopathy (bone density loss)

these are important issues to today's pts, take 15 mins to read this one
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article7032233.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

throw on top of that some of the emerging tdf kidney problems...

and patent issues for existing nrti...

and the combined income of the nrtis, 3tc and ftc at more than $3.2B per year (the best 2 nnrti are way below that)

i think the ATC potential and deal should deliver a significantly higher NPV than the Idenix deal...

but to which partner???