Is this simply a case of the NIH Syndrome (as in "Not Invented Here"), or is it (even more) simply true that Vertex's Telaprevir will win this coming generation of Hep C treatment candidates, and New Merck is now retooling for the next generation, beyond that?
I dunno -- but Salmon gives us the scoop, from Boston.com -- do go read it all:
. . . .[Merck's Peter] Kim said top prospects among the drugs acquired from Schering-Plough include two that would each be the first in a new class, an anticlotting drug referred to as TRA and a hepatitis C drug called boceprevir. . . .
The two companies' pipelines overlapped only in hepatitis C and cancer. In those two cases, each company had a lead compound out of multiple candidates. The combined company decided to put the Schering-Plough compounds on the back burner and move forward on testing of the Merck compounds. . .
More generally, Salmon writes: Merck doesn't give MK numbers until after proof of concept studies have been positive. This implies that MK-7009 is in late phase II whereas boceprivir was much further along in development in phase III.For Merck to have placed boceprivir on hold and instead move forward a compound in the same class that is much further behind suggests that they don't think much of boceprivir. In fact it may even have major toxicity issues that they don't like. Otherwise you continue with getting it to market as number two for market share and hope a later compound is better than Vertex's compound and will eventually take market share.
As I once heard someone from Merck say they either want to be first to market or best to market.
Of course this is speculation based on news articles and we don't know how reliable the reports are.
-- Salmon
March 11, 2010 5:04 PM
Indeed. I do think Whitehouse Station is now looking to the next-next generation of Hep C treatments.
8 comments:
What do you think the chances that Boce is licensed out? Afterall, Dick did say he was looking to parcel out some of the pipeline.
I would think that a fairly small probability -- as I suspect at least some of the New Merck thinking here is to pursue its OWN internal (legacy) Hep C candidate aggressively (i.e., the "NIH" effect mentioned at the head of my post), rather than (potentially) canibalize that same market with the legacy Schering-Plough boceprevir candidate.
That said, if CEO Clark could get an upfront payment, and a handsome chunk of the sales revenue in license royalties, I think he'd do it. [Recall that New Merck still sells a fair amount of legacy Schering-Plough's Pegintron into this market space, regardless.]
On the other hand, IF Vertex's Telaprevir really does make its FDA filing for approval by mid-year 2010 (only a few months off, now) -- it will be more than a full year ahead of boceprevir in reaching market -- unless something goes drastically astray with Telaprevir.
Given Telaprevir's very strong efficacy in previous non-responders, it would quickly be a huge seller, and perhaps a category killer, with at least a year's lead, all alone, on the market.
So, a potential licensor of Boceprevir would have to spend very aggressively, and really ramp up the efforts (now back-burnered at Merck) to have any shot of getting to market within a half-year of Vetex's drug.
As I say -- not highly-likely, that.
I wish it were better news, as I suspect this anonymous comment comes from one of the researchers or marketers working on the boceprevir project.
Namaste
I wondered about the NIH syndrome.
Of course there are 2 teams now and both want to remain employed. (
Although some people can be reassigned.) Plus you don't want 2 late stage compounds as you don't want to be competing for subjects and sites and thus slowing both projects down.
All said the decision on which project to pursue is made at a management level higher than the teams and so their career interests are getting the best possible compound to market as fast as possible. (Faster typically being paramount, although maximization of profits is going to be the deciding factor.)
All in all either MK-7009 is a much better compound in terms of efficacy or boce has got major problems. (Several other competing compounds have been dropped by other companies due to safety concerns.)
Considering MK-7009's stage of development I'm not sure if they would have efficay data that would blow boce out of the water. Although there are some articles and press releases that may shed light on this that I haven't looked at yet.
Salmon
Let me understand this:
a) boce goes to a 'stand by' basis,
b) S/P's CCR5 candidate isn't as great a therapy as was suggested,
c) saphris is a minor player in the pysch portfolio and
d) Zetia/Vytorin has no real cardiovascular protective activity (other than bringing in $)
and wasn't TRA being shopped around as a potential co-licensing candidate by Freddie?
So, what did Dick buy from Freddie?
Looks like he bought a pig in a poke.
Salmon
bocepravir still appears in the current pipeline diagram released this week. Nalepravir does not. Perhaps these two phase II competitors were compared and under discussion. Bocepravir appears in front (phase III) in the pipeline.
As to Boceprevir, Peter Kim is quoted in the Linda Johnson AP story (reprinted at boston.com) as saying that it was "back-burnered" -- not killed, outright. Linda Johnson is a pretty good fact-checking, experienced pharma reporter.
Me? I think Whitehouse Station knows better than to kill it outright (that might cause a smallish stock dip). . . no, MRL will more likely slowly fade Boceprevir mentions and reminders, and eventually it will fall off the chart, in about two years' time.
We'll see. Good point on Nalepravir's MIA status!
Namaste
looks like animal health business is the most valuable asset in this merger. And yet it is being partnered off with Sanofi!
Post a Comment