4 ms·
The article links to these internal minutes and memos that seal the case: (1) Minutes from a 2003 meeting where “ The recommendation of the Review Committee wa
by aaronharnly 3y ago
The article links to these internal minutes and memos that seal the case:
(1) Minutes from a 2003 meeting where “ The recommendation of the Review Committee was to stop development due to the likelihood that GS- 7340 would ultimately cannibalize Viread regardless of its efficacy and safety profile.”
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/gilead-apr-2003/bb3fa1e1a56e7dc8/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/gilead-apr-2003/bb3fa...
2) A memo laying out that “Development of GS7340 is timed such that it is launched in 2015 with a six-year path to commercial launch.”
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/gilead-sept-2003/1561f0e7e503288f/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/gilead-sept-2003/1561...
- refurb 3y agoI think the key point in the memo is "The following assumptions were made for purposes of calculating the potential value of GS7340 as an exclusivity extension strategy: GS7340 exhibits incrementally better efficacy (greater antiviral log reduction when taken as a monotherapy) than Viread. At the time the decision was made, nobody knew if the drug would be better. There were two possible outcomes if they made the investment now: a) the drug turns out to be a flop, the investment is lost or b) the drug turns out to be better. And the decision was not "do we continue to develop this now", it was "do we develop this now, or spend the R&D dollars on something else". It is true that the patent expiration was a factor, but the fact the drug turned out to be better is just 20/20 hindsight. If it had failed and Gilead flushed a few hundred million down the drain, nobody would have criticized the decision to delay the development.