You will understand that after we have been bombarded with false and deceptive claims by certain posters in recent weeks comments like "Are we looking for an opportunity to dispose off some shares?" directed specificly a a list of long term holders would reasonably be construed as a taunt. If you truely didn't mean it to be so then please accept my appology. I simply couldn't see any reason that anybody would write something like that given what we have recently had to put up with here.
Anyway, moving on. You ask "Considering your extensive research into this company, could you respond to my previous posts regarding timing of potential partnering up with other HCV DAA's to conduct joint trials together".
I wrote a post a couple of weeks back in discussion with Pesa and others re the broad question of partnering and my opinion hasn't changed much since then with the except of at least one new catalyst within your 18 month timeframe.
In short I believe that there are way too many variables to narrow down the timing of potential partnering as it could happen this afternoon or in 3 years. Thats a big range I know and not the sort of answer anybody wants to hear but there are reasons for this vagueness as I have described before. I'll gladly summarise some of the key reasons that I believe this to be the case.
a) BIT225 has recently achieved several key milestones, its excellent HCV trial followup results, new capsule for future trials, etc. Its currently in a state that it could be attractive to other companies that need to plug a hole in their own combos and as a result one could come around sniffing at any given moment in time.
b) New 3 month toxicology trials will position BIT225 for inclusion in longer trials as per industry direction. While I believe any potential partner described in (a) above would wait for this 3 month toxicology data before agreeing to start a combo trial, they wouldn't necessarily wait for that data before engaging Biotron. Any agreement would simply be "subject to" and "conditional upon" said data meeting certain criteria. If they needed BIT225 to fill their gap they wouldn't want to be pipped at the post by somebody else in the same situation. Remember that there are a large number of players in this space and every one of them needs a combo that works well.
c) The HIV trial should finally finish sometime in the next few decades. In the next couple of months if we take any notice of updated guidance #7. We all know that the results from this trial have the potential to throw BIT225 into the spotlight more broadly. This may draw the attention of new prospective partners seeking new combos specifically targetting the co-infected for example as well as those working on HIV specific combos.
d) BIT314 is a bit of a wildcard. Biotron indicate that it appears to have "increased potency" against P7 in the HCV space. They are intend to get it through tox and safety studies in the next 6 months then into human trials in H2. If BIT314 initial results improve dramatically on BIT225 then that just improves on Biotrons chances of partnerings one would think.
Now clearly I am not of the view that this is a first to the line, winner take all competition as some are. Certainly the first to the line should do well and make bucket loads of money with their monopoly until others come along but we all know how competition works and with such a massive amount of money in the pool there will be a number of combos without a shaddow of a doubt in my mind.
As far as catalysts for a potential deal I would list the following sequence as a rough quide:
a) Immediate - need for P7 inhibitor in a combo by another drug company following recent HCV trial results b) 3 months - HIV trial results attract HIV combo partners c) 6 months - HCV/HIV coinfected trial results d) 18 months - BIT314 trial results
Obviously there are many more things going on but any of the above 4 could be a trigger for a partner to get into serious talks with Biotron. So in 18 months there are at least 4 potential catalysts but I don't see 18 months as the minimum but rather tomorrow if the minimum and there is no maximum.
I just want to see HIV results as this would reduce the obsession with short term HCV partnering. Yes its important and yes a partner for HCV would be a very good thing for Biotron and its share price but in reality we have multiple tickets and we want / need to see that BIT225's potential in the HIV space is real to offset the risk that people are feeling in the HCV space.
Its important to recognise the actual state of play in the HCV space at this point in time. It is very different to what some people have been claiming. At this point in time there are no 100% SRV "cures" that have been tested that don't involve ribavirin. The joint trial between Gilead and Bristol-Myers Squibb's was one of the most promising exceptions (sofosbuvir + daclatasvir) but this combo isn't going to be progressed anyway. So based on actual results to date, the race for an orally administered cure that avoids the horrible side effects of ribavirin is very much still up in the air. Maybe Gilead will get there first when they do finally test whether GS-5885 will achieve good results when administered without ribavirin but the trial still needs to be run and as we all know results are based on actual outcomes, not what we just hope they will achieve. I sort of hope they do manage to get there with their combo but I don't believe it diminishes BIT225 / BIT 314's potential in any way.
With so many drugs in current trails its possible or even likely that we will see alternatives to Gilead's sofosbuvir in achieving solid RVR numbers and thus being the foundations of new combos. BIT225 or even BIT314 may be candidates for such combos to prevent relapse. RVR alone isn't a cure and more than a jigsaw is complete without the corner piece.
BIT Price at posting:
10.5¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
