i think this is a possibility to be bought and hold it's release on the market. but now i come and i ask, if there will be some clearly results that Arrowheads drug can cure or better treat hbv than anything we have now with much bigger chances of success, is it legal not to release it ?
Thanks both.
My initial thought was perhaps Gilead just wants to remove a potential competitor to its own pipeline of drugs in development, which would be negative for sufferers.
Anyway, perhaps just nothing more than a market rumour.
It would be bad. Gilead does not have a good record when it comes to prompt release of new drugs and fair prices for new drugs. Gilead sat on TDF for years even though TDF was known to be effective for HBV, and when it did release TDF for HBV, it did not do any clinical trials to determine the optimal dosage for HBV, it just used the same dosage as for HIV. The same thing could be happening with TAF. The prices Gilead charges for their new HCV drugs are just greedy, even though the total cost is roughly the same as existing long term treatment for HCV. But the cost of actually producing the new drug is much lower than the 1000 USD it charges. Gilead did not develop the new drug, it bought it from Pharmasset for $11 billion.
So if Gilead were to buy Arrowhead, there is no guarantee that clinical development will be any faster and the price they are going to charge for the new drug (if it is successful) will benefit Gilead rather then the patients.
On the other hand, Arrowhead is well resourced to develop the drug further and as quickly as possible, it being their sole potential drug with a vast market.
Gilead has 3 potential HBV drugs, TAF, GS9620, and GS4774, in the pipeline, so I don't think it is in a hurry without outside competitions.
My strong opinion.
...mhhh why dont they buy replicor if it was to cure hbv?what nonsense