This is an interesting question because the paper was received by Nature on 30 Sep 2013. What date was our trial predicted to start? Sep 2013.
It could be a coincidence but I wonder if the FDA required this work to be done but we just could not get it done in time and this was the reason for the delay in starting our trial. This would make sense.
If the FDA did not require the work to be done, then what would be the point? This study is in replicons and does not add to the NHP data; it only re-enforces the data. BLT already has approval to start a trial and so the pre-clinical data will soon be confirmed or not in a clinical setting. On the surface, this additional research does not seem to be a necessity for BLT.
The other explanation is that Pfizer wanted additional evidence in the light of Dr Kay's papers and this new data goes some way to addressing at least one of Dr Kay's concerns. If this is the case then Pfizer must have an agenda as far as TT-034 is concerned.
I guess we will never know the answer.
BLT Price at posting:
84.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
