allotment, page-106

tp
you might want to look a little further down the page at those VX-950 results, where they show the viral load decline by day...including at 7 days...
here http://www.natap.org/2006/EASL/EASL_12.htm

after 7 days VX-950 = more than -4.0 log

you may also want to go and look at the bit monotherapy viral load declines...

the average bit200 after 7 days was less than -0.2 log...

http://www.ihlpress.com/pdf%20files/hepdart09_presentations/late_breaker/11_Luscombe%20HepDART%202009%20Oral%20presentation.pdf

that is, rcg is correct that BIT does not drop viral loads as much or as quickly as some of the other daa

thats fine, bit225 will need a different selling point...
and u can abuse rcg all u like, but the fact remains

and if u want to compare recent phii, here's one example, of many, where BIT is not a potent hcv inhibitor as other daa

bit400+soc 28 days = -4.0 log
placebo+soc 28 days = -3.0 log
a -1 log effect from bit400

ach1625+soc 28 days = -4.96
placebo+soc 28 days = -2.25
http://www.achillion.com/PL/pdf/ACH1625_Ph2-28D_AASLD2011_ACHN.pdf

so bit400=-1.0 compared to placebo
ach1625=-2.7 compared to placebo

difference = -1.7 log = 98% lower viral load effect at 28 days

also from the recent phii
at 35 days, the placebo + soc viral load was lower than the bit200 + soc viral load!!

it doesnt mean bit225 is of little worth
it just means they need to find the position for bit225 in a changing hcv daa landscape, which aint easy

and has been helped little by a very small trial, with challenging results to interpret, in thailand/asia with their different hcv responses, and no pts/trials in the US...