alertmeipp
4 days ago
Yes, agree, as commitment to partnership means a few things:
1) cash burn will come down, runway will increase
2) partnership can come anytime now, so the cost of not-in or holding a short position could be significant.
3) company can now focus on immunology, a pure play often get better valuation vs. company that has mixed focus. Especially when kit and stat6 seems to be a hot (but crowded) area.
At least I felt better after the confirmation.
dewophile
4 days ago
Thx
The reason I posted RSV case rates by age is that there is a widely held belief that Nirsevimab and maternal vaccination are underutilized because last year pediatric case rates were not any lower than prepandemic levels. The contention that these measures don't reduce case rates but rather shift them to older age categories is not universally held at all, and has implications for the size of the peds RSV market moving forward.
Nivesimab was supply constrained last year, but this season I think more widely available, so I think comparing infection rates by age this year versus last is relevant to evaluate ENTA's contention that passive immunity pushes the age of first and most severe infection upward (and it may be that a first infection in a 1.5 year old is less severe than a 5 month old so it may lower overall cases a little, but from real time CDC data there is IMO a clear shift to older aged infants and young children being infected after more widespread implementation of passive immunity). i.e. the peds market is going to remain substantial even with near universal coverage of neonates, which is not I think a widely and certainly not universally believed contention among investors - which is why i have posted about it several times now. Articles like yours offer further support, but my best is that in a year or so we see peer reviewed publications on this after a coupel years of introduction of nirsevimab and maternal RSV vaccination
alertmeipp
6 days ago
Partnership shift - a few months ago, ENTA planned to pursue RSV program independently, as reflected in their budget updates. Then, in the ped data call, management mentioned all options, including partnerships, are on the table. Now, partnering is their sole strategy.
Wonder what changed the narrative...
1) Strong 323 challenge data plus not-home-run type pediatric results made the program more complex and better suited for a partnership (as dewophile pointed out)
2) Interest from partners may have shifted the risk-reward balance in favor of collaboration. (upside was properly compensated)
3) ENTA seems focused on becoming a pure immunology biotech play, and partnering aligns with this goal.
4) They might never have planned to go solo but left the option open to strengthen their position in partnership talks. Now, they no longer needs such posture.
DewDiligence
6 days ago
Re: FY2025 expense guidance So now that they have confirmed they are not doing phase 3 on RSV alone, the cash burn guidance should get updated in coming release as well?I concur and I consider this a salient point. I.e. part the impetus for the recent selloff has been ENTA's failure to furnish FY2025 expense guidance in the FY4Q24 press release in November. Because this was contrary to what ENTA had done in all prior years (see #msg-175439732, bottom) some investors (reasonably) got spooked.
p.s. If it were up to me, ENTA would issue FY2025 expense guidance immediately, rather than waiting for the FY1Q25 press release in early February, but I doubt this will happen.
alertmeipp
6 days ago
I just listened to the call. RSV lone-wolf path is definitely off the table and does seem the whole program will be partnered out even though he said “and/or” 323. That is great news indeed. I, too, felt relieved after knowing that.
Not sure they will necessarily wait for the HR data before a partnership. Jay said “it’s time to explore” partnership, no mention of waiting for HR data etc. I guess depends on what can get, hope they will accept a reasonable deal. It’s a large indication.
I would think a partner and ENTA won’t want to wait another 6 months and lose the valuable lead time they have had in the RSV area. They probably want to get going ASAP. 323s challenge data seems to have messed things up in a sense, the data is too good to not explore further and that needs money ;)
So now that they have confirmed they are not doing phase 3 on RSV alone, the cash burn guidance should get updated in coming release as well??
Another indication in immunology, the TAM $ of these indications are just next level.
now if they got some nice upfront on RSV and then use the royalty to fund the immunology. the sky is the limit.
One thing I disagree on your post - I think the stock can turn around and run back up without any actual news. The company and its stock has been so disconnected, maybe we can sell off with a RSV partnership news ;)
Eventually, company and stock performance will connect, hopefully, before the paint dries out.
alertmeipp
6 days ago
Well, if the market write off the RSV, we should get a triple soon ;)
By the way, your previous RSV partnership comment is pretty much spot on, they do need a partnership to explore various possibilities, seems the excellent data on 323 kind of demand that.
Appreciate yours and others knowledge sharing here.