Seeking Alpha
We cover over 5K calls/quarter
Profile| Send Message|
( followers)  

Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDIX)

Q2 2013 Earnings Conference Call

August 7, 2013 8:00 AM ET

Executives

Teri Dahlman – Director of Corporate Communications

Daniella Beckman – Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

Ronald C. Renaud, Jr. – President and Chief Executive Officer

Douglas Mayers – Chief Medical Officer and Executive Vice President of Clinical Development

David Standring – Chief Scientific Officer

Wayne T. Hockmeyer – Former Chairman, MedImmune, Inc.

Analysts

Brian Skorney – Robert W. Baird

David Ferreiro – Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.

Brian Skorney – Robert W. Baird & Co.

Operator

Good day ladies and gentlemen and welcome to Idenix Pharmaceuticals Second Quarter 2013 Financial Results Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will be given at that time.

I would now like to turn the conference over to your host, Teri Dahlman, Director of Corporate Communications. You may begin.

Teri Dahlman

Thank you, good morning and welcome to Idenix’s conference call to discuss the Company’s financial results for the second quarter and six months ended 2013. We’ll also provide an update on our HCV development pipeline. With me today are Ron Renaud, President and Chief Executive Officer; Daniella Beckman, Chief Financial Officer; David Standring, Chief Scientific Officer; and Doug Mayers, Chief Medical Officer.

Before we begin, I’ll review our Safe Harbor statement. Today’s discussion contains estimates and other statements that are forward-looking under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such estimates and statements are based on current expectations and assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties and involve a number of factors that could cause actual results to differ materially.

Additional information concerning these factors is contained in our filings with the SEC, which are available on the Investor section of our website. While we may elect to update forward-looking statements in the future, we specifically disclaim any obligation to do so, even if our estimates or assumptions change. You should not rely on these forward-looking statements as representing our estimates as of any date subsequent to today. On today’s call, Daniella will review the financial results, and then Ron will provide a pipeline update. We’ll then open the call for Q&A.

I’ll now turn the call over to Daniella.

Daniella Beckman

Thanks Teri. For the second quarter ended June 30, 2013, we reported total revenues of $0.1 million, compared to total revenues of $1.4 million in the second quarter of 2012. We reported a net loss of $28.9 million or $0.22 per basic and diluted share for the second quarter ended June 30, 2013, compared to a net loss of $25.4 million or $0.23 per basic and diluted share for the second quarter ended June 30, 2012.

For the six months ended June 30, 2013, we reported total revenues of a $1 million compared to total revenues of $37.1 million in the six months ended June 30, 2012. We reported a net loss of $59.7 million or $0.45 per basic and diluted share for the six months ended June 30, 2013 compared to a net loss of $13.9 million or $0.13 per basic and diluted share for the six months ended June 30, 2012.

The change in net loss was mainly due to additional revenue as a result of the recognition of $36.1 million of deferred revenue in the first quarter of 2012 related to the termination of the license agreement with ViiV Healthcare Company. Additionally, there are increases in $4.7 million in R&D and $6.1 million in G&A expenses.

At June 30, 2013 our cash and cash equivalents totaled $177.6 million; we continue to expect that this balance will be sufficient to sustain our operations into at least the second half of 2014; assuming no milestone payments or license fees, no reimbursement for development programs and no financing activities.

I will now turn the call over to Ron.

Ronald C. Renaud

Thanks Daniella. I would like to take this opportunity to provide you with an update on our HCV development programs. First, we are pleased with the progress of our lead drug candidate Samatasvir also known as IDX719, once-daily, pan-genotypic NS5A inhibitor. As you know in May we initiated the Phase II clinical trial called HELIX-1, which is evaluating an all-oral, direct-acting antiviral or DAA HCV combination regimen in including Samatasvir and Simeprevir also known as TMC435 a once-daily protease inhibitor jointly developed by Janssen and Medivir.

In this trial genotype 1b or 4 HCV-infected patients who are treatment-naïve and non-cirrhotic are being randomized equally across three treatment arms, receiving either 50, 100 or 150 milligrams of Samatasvir once-daily for 12 weeks in combination with Simeprevir plus Ribavirin.

The first cohort of patients n=29 has completed enrollment in the study. The Data Safety Monitoring Board has reviewed all data relating to this cohort up to 28 days of treatment and recommended that the study continue enrollment, which is now underway. We are also happy to report that the treatment regimen has been well tolerated and there had been no treatment-related to serious adverse events in the clinical trial to-date. Rates of sustained virologic response measured four weeks after the end of treatment or SVR4 will be available for the first cohort of patients in the fourth quarter of 2013.

Also under the Janssen collaboration, we expect to initiate during this quarter a second 12 week clinical trial, called HELIX-2 and genotype 1 or 4 treatment-naïve HCV-infected patients. This clinical trial will evaluate the three-DAA all oral combination of samatasvir, simeprevir and TMC647055, Janssen once-daily non-nucleoside polymerase inhibitor boosted with low dose Ritonavir.

Now I would like to review the status of our nucleotide inhibitor program. As you know in the second quarter we filed an investigation on new drug application or IND for IDX2963. Idenix’s lead uridine nucleotide prodrug candidate and in June we announced that the FDA requested additional preclinical safety information for four clinical trial could be initiated in the United States.

I want to emphasis, that the issue associated with the whole is not one related to cardiac, mitochondrial, renal or hepatic safety. The clarity I would like to review with you the specific issue for which the FDA has requested additional information. We observed a weak positive finding in one of the five bacterial strains Ames test, which is an in vitro biological assay commonly used to test immunogenicity or potential genotoxicity. All other in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity test are negative, including the four other strains of the Ames test, the chromosome elaboration and micronucleus assays and empirical genotoxicity assessment.

The FDA has requested information related to the specific Ames test finding. We believe that the finding was in our effect of the bacterial assay that may not be clinically relevant and we are conducting supplemental preclinical work to determine this. In addition to all of our preclinical work, we are actively pursuing a clinical development strategy for IDX20963 outside of the United States.

We remain committed to our nucleotide franchise leveraging the Company’s nucleotide chemistry expertise and strong intellectual property position. To that end, we also plan to file a regulatory submission to initiate clinical trials for a second uridine nucleotide prodrug HCV inhibitor in the second half of 2013.

We believe in the potential of our next generation candidates with our ultimate goal remaining the evaluation of our own in-house all oral combination regimen. We continue to believe that there is a significant opportunity for an all-oral pan-genotypic combination regimen and that our drug candidates will have a key role in the future of HCV treatment.

With that, I will now open the call for Q&A. Operator, are there any questions?

Question-and-Answer Session

Operator

(Operator Instructions) Our first question is from Matt Roden from UBS. Your line is open.

Unidentified Analyst

Actually Andrew in for Matt, a couple of quick questions; first I guess is more on strategy post the HELIX program. I was wondering if you could get into a little bit of detail on kind of what are the next steps after data and what would the profile have to look like for our go kind of a go-no go decision to move into Phase III and then have a quick follow up.

Ronald C. Renaud, Jr.

Right. So I’ll let Doug take a good part of this question. I think just preliminarily if you think about HELIX-1 it’s a two drug DA combination, it’s a protease inhibitor and the NS5A and then HELIX-2 is obviously a three drug combination with Ritonavir boosting the non-nuke in that regimen. I think as we look beyond this, we have to look at what the competitive landscape is going to – how that’s going to unfold here in a very, very near future.

It’s a regimen that looks very similar to that from the folks that I’d be which looks very good. I think as we think big picture, we know that we want to be competitive with that regimen, which appears to be generating some of the best SVRs out there. Doug?

Douglas Mayers

Yes, I mean at this point there is several pass forward the two DAA combination of samatasvir and simeprevir is potentially an Asia strategy. It’s active against genotype 1b and 4, whereas the three drug combination was more of a North American and European strategy, if we want to go ahead with us.

But additionally our major goal of this program for us was to get 200 patients of safety data, so that we could combine samatasvir with one of our uridine nucleotide early next year. And so I think a big haul at Idenix is to get the one of the news moving forward in combination with samatasvir and how to fix those combinations and give once a day.

Unidentified Analyst

Great, thanks. And the second question is just on the second nuke that you was mentioning possible filing later this year. Have you seen similar findings on the test for this nuke and in the past I think you’ve described 963s packages, one of the most robust preclinical safety packages? Is that – have you done similar kind of amount of work on the second nuke and is that package as robust?

Douglas Mayers

Yeah, I’ll let David to comment and detail if we need to, but I would tell you that yes, we’ve conducted the same level of preclinical work as we did for 963, and I would point out that this – it is not the full Ames test, its one strain in the Ames test, there were five strains that we looked at in this Ames test for 963, the other four were negative, it was one strains in the Ames test and the answer to your question is for the next uridine nucleotide prodrug candidate, we have also run same level of testing and we did not see anything in the Ames test for the next one. Dave if there is anything you want to add to that.

David Standring

Yeah, I mean we do a battery of genotoxicity testing including some in-silico computer base method, plus chromosome elaboration assays, micronucleus or at micronucleus assays and the Ames strain and the next uridine is clean in all of these as Ron said. And again, very robust testing package overall and this looks good.

Unidentified Analyst

Great, thanks

Operator

Our next question is from Geoff Meacham from JP Morgan. Your line is open.

Unidentified Analyst

Hi this is (inaudible) for Geoff. Generally from a broad level, can you give a sense of what the development strategy for IDX20963 might look like over U.S? Thanks.

Ronald C. Renaud, Jr.

I think you know again I’ll let Doug chime in here, but it would not look anything different I think than we’ve seen with other n nucleotide, I think the driving goal would for us is to run the standard Proof-of-Concept program, get that data and then get that drug in combination with our own Samatasvir, our NS5A as quickly as possible and begin to generate that pan-genotypic data that would help this program be competitive in the future.

So whether its here in the United States or its outside of the United States, depending on where we can get the certain genotypes of patients that may take on a different flavor in terms of where we do the studies geographically, but the end goal would remain the same.

Unidentified Analyst

And could you give us a sense of next steps and timelines for the clinical hold and when you potentially expect getting feedback from the FDA?

Ronald C. Renaud, Jr.

Yeah, I mean it’s difficult to predict at this time we’re working as quickly as we can and we’re trying to pursue as many path as possible, in order to get this resolved. I can tell you as we’ve said in our prepared remarks; we believe that this positive finding in this one strain is an artefact of the bacterial assay.

So what we need to do is definitively prove that and there are a number of ways to do that but some of them are a bit time consuming and probably a bit more time consuming than we would like but we’ve got to turn those stones over at this point and get to that. So I can’t give you a real sense of timing on that except to say we’re working on this in very real time and we’re working as aggressively as we can to resolve this.

Unidentified Analyst

Great. Thanks for taking our questions.

Ronald C. Renaud, Jr.

Sure.

Operator

Our next question is from Alethia Young from Deutsche Bank. Your line is open.

Alethia Young – Deutsche Bank

Great, thanks for taking my question. And one question I have is just kind of a follow on, on that is just can you talk a little bit about more in detail how you exonerate the profile versus what you say in this artefact Wayne you said there were some of the methods can be a little time consuming but can you just kind of give us a flavor for like what that process may look like and how the interactions with the FDA are?

Wayne T. Hockmeyer

Sure, Alethia I’ll let David take that question.

David Standring

Yeah, I mean right now we’re looking to sort of see what is going on in the bacterial system, we actually know that the compound is unstable in bacteria it’s degraded and perhaps metabolized differently from a mammalian cell. So I think one of the things that we’re doing is, we’re trying to look, we’re trying to identify what all of these different products are we’re trying to find out exactly what the culprit is in this weekly positive Ames test and then I think we go from there to sort of determining whether this is in anyway relevant to what will happen in mammalian-cells and the clinics.

So that is one of our strategies that we’re looking at some assays in mammalian-cells for sort of mutagenic potential there doing additional assays there and we have an in vivo studies which we’re also contemplating at this point. So we have a battery of things, one of the key pieces again is just to find out the mechanism this is and exactly what is responsible so that we can narrow the window down.

Unidentified Analyst

Great, thanks. Can I speak on other one which is around kind of, kind of the balance between have you specified what kind of, is your second nuke or the uridine nuke or another class and then kind of the add-on to that is just trying to get a feel through when, like when you think it’s like the last critical point that you need to be in the clinical that new to like not go head-to-head with like, future competitors on the market?

Unidentified Company Representative

Yeah. It’s a good question but I think so, so first of all, the answer to your first question, yes we have said, the next one is a uridine nucleotide prodrug candidate. And I think look we are about to see a change in the DAA competitive environment here probably by the end of this year or the very early part of next year.

But based on the discussions that we’ve had with not only the [KLLs] but with payers and we’ve had some very involved discussions over the better part of the last 12 to 18 months. We just don’t see it evolving as quickly as I think maybe the investment community does and so we are still playing for being a major player and a major competitor in the all-oral, pan-genotypic HCV landscape. I think it’s gonna take a little bit longer to have these patients materialized to screen these patients, to have these patients come out of the wood work to generate some of the sales estimates that we’ve seen on the street.

Our assumptions, our working assumptions now are that it’s going to take a little bit longer than I think what many believe. I’m not saying its gonna go on for the foreseeable future and that its never going to end, we do know that there is a finite opportunity here, but we still believe that the development programs that we have and the products that we are bringing to the clinic still have a tremendous opportunity to be very competitive.

Unidentified Analyst

Great, thanks for taking my questions.

Operator

Next question is from [Catherine Sue] from William Blair. Your line is open.

Unidentified Analyst

Hey, I have a few questions; first one is for 719 combination studies, why is HELIX- done in [221B] only, are you going to have plans to do the study without the right verges for the double along at all going forward?

Douglas Mayers

At this point, I’ll take it, this is Doug Mayers. At this point most of the studies that looked at NS5A protease have shown less activity in genotype 1a, because you can get high level resistance to both protease and the NS5A with single mutation, it’s harder to get resistance in 1b and so most of the studies are going on or with a PI and NS5A are going on in 1b population.

We are going to look at the data we get in 1b and if we see very good data, we may well go into 1a, we are clearly going to go into 1a with the triple where the non-nucleoside protease combination something what (inaudible) is doing. Additionally, we are going to look at Ribavirin free combination down the road in this study.

Unidentified Analyst

On the nuc, what is the pre-clinical animal tox that you have right now in the R&D?

Unidentified Company Representative

We have a usual animal toxin in two species basically and those actually done also with a vast variety of enhancements particularly cardiac measurements and everything following the whole BMS situation and those basically look clean and give us really pretty good safety margins, we believe the doses that we expect in the clinic. So it’s a very robust package, we’re actually very happy with it and I think the one, the one thing we had is the single Ames result.

Unidentified Company Representative

I mean Catherine as we have said in the remarks here the issue here is not cardiac, it is not (inaudible) it is not renal, it is not liver, it is the one specific issue that is related to the whole that we need to resolve. I would tell you that as far as the IND enabling studies, we did the standard IND enabling package but as David points out given what we were able to see in what was part of the issues concerning the Bristol-Myers program last summer and throughout the fall. We did look at many additional parameters just to make sure that not only we were comfortable that we can provide comfort to the regulatory authorities that we had looked at these things and to the best of at least our ability pre-clinically was to be able to take these take off the table.

Unidentified Analyst

So when you say you didn’t have any hepatic signal or talks. Just curious, I mean is there any observations or hypothesis I think we generated very, very high (inaudible) levels, could that correlate with any of hepatic talks?

Unidentified Company Representative

Well first of all, we are not talking about the hepatic talks here. Right, so you know…

Unidentified Analyst

I understand, and just it is sort of a side questions I mean more theoretical question I guess.

Unidentified Company Representative

Yeah I don’t know, I think that’s out of the scope of this discussion Catherine, quite honestly, I mean it had nothing to do with we’re seeing and again I want to be careful because I know there is a number of things going on competitively with other nucleosides or nucleotide prodrug. So I think it’s you know it would best serve by not going beyond the scope of our own conversation.

Unidentified Analyst

Understand, thank you.

Unidentified Company Representative

Okay.

Operator

Our next question is from Howard (inaudible). Your line is open.

Unidentified Analyst

Yeah thank you very much. First the Ex-U.S. study that you are planning for the weak nuke, can you talk about where are you planning that study in Europe or New Zealand or somewhere else?

Unidentified Company Representative

Yeah, Howard until we get any kind of plans finalized, I think we are gonna hold off on disclosing that. Once again things are and moving pretty much in real time so once we have some clarity on exactly where we will go and what we are doing will be very, very transparent on that, but those plans have not been finalized at this point,

Unidentified Analyst

Okay, and were there a specific criteria that you gave to the DSMB in Phase I for allowing the continued enrollment of the proposed 28 days or is that their judgment call?

Unidentified Company Representative

There are criteria for stopping the study that – the study but the continuation is their judgment call, and so they have all the safety and efficacy data actually very much up until very close to DSMB meeting none of our patients well beyond 28 days at that point in time. And basically based on no safety or efficacy concerns and we’re comfortable that is to proceed.

Unidentified Analyst

Okay, and then just a couple of questions on the Ames finding what was the weekly positive finding dose dependent and if so what was dose relative to your plant human dose and then second can you go over the other four tests that – viability.

Unidentified Company Representative

Yeah. I mean it’s a little difficult to relate Ames doses to human doses they are huge, these tests are done at up to about 5000 micrograms of compound per plate. So that translates to I think sort of close to the 300 micromolar level around about that. So these are very, very high doses relative to anything we will see in the clinic.

In terms of the dose response, we saw effects only at the highest doses basically 1000 micrograms per plate and above. So very much limited to those and just a little bit above the cut-off of the assay this was one particular strain there were another four different strains used in the Ames test and those were all negative. There was no findings in those. So this is really localized to one single in vitro test.

Unidentified Company Representative

And Howard, I would also say you can do a pretty high level cursory search online and you can see that there are many other drugs that are on the market that have very similar sets of either positive Ames findings or outright – you have seen mutagenicity or genotox. So this is not an uncommon finding.

Unidentified Analyst

Until the year before tests are with different bacteria strains at some difference salmonella or equalized strains?

Unidentified Company Representative

Yeah we use four different salmonella strains that look at different sort of mutational spectra if you will and also an E. coli strain as well and those others were all negative, it’s just a single strain that gave a weak positive results.

Unidentified Analyst

Okay. Great, thanks very much.

Unidentified Company Representative

Sure.

Operator

Our next question is from Brian Skorney from Robert W. Baird. Your line is open.

Brian Skorney – Robert W. Baird

Good morning guys. Thanks for taking my questions. First one just in related to the HELIX-1 study, I don’t know if I missed it in your remarks, but did you provide RVR for the first cohort or can you comment on whether or not there was any breakthrough in the study or maybe you can put it another way, has the study given you any insight into the barrier to resistance provided by Samatasvir and Simeprevir?

Unidentified Company Representative

Yeah. So Brian we did not report the RVR, this is a blinded study, I think what we decided to do is as we’ve said all along is we will report the data when we have the full SCR4 picture for the first cohort of patients. So we don’t want a piecemeal the study, it remains blinded, only the DSMB got to see the safety and efficacy that as Doug just pointed out. So we’ll report the full picture when we do that in the fourth quarter.

Brian Skorney – Robert W. Baird

Okay. That’s fair. And then I just I know we’ll discuss a little bit about just kind of the liver issues. And I’m just wondering and I guess there’s more of a theoretical rationale just kind of following from Catherine. Given what we are seeing with 135 the fact that we had a liver target and put on clinical hold. I wondered just pretty clinical how do you guys de-risk the concept of balancing high triphosphate that seems to be necessary for antiviral activity and the risk that that level of drug ultimately wants in some sort of liver signal. Is there a way to really kind of get through that concern pre-clinically, or is that (inaudible).

Unidentified Company Representative

I will let Doug and Dave and take a – at this point. I would tell you that when you’re doing the IND-enabling studies even just your standard battery of GLP preclinical toxicity studies you’re taking a look at all the major organ systems. You are trying to find tox, you want to see a signal in all the major systems so that once you get into a large population of patients, if you hit something, you generally know what to look for or what might happen after that.

So it’s not uncommon to find or to actually run your studies until you find toxicity upfront. I think specifically with regard to liver toxicity, I mean you can run these IND these preclinical IND-enabling programs and see very high margins on top of pre-clinical rodent studies or preclinical animal studies. So I think when you see these things in the clinic, a lot of times it is in fact unexpected, but Doug, David if you want to add to that.

David Standring

I mean it is a balancing act. As you mentioned, I think the way we are going about it is we’re trying to figure out how much of our drug we give an equivalent exposure to samatasvir in terms of triphosphate which we know has been quite safe. And we normalized to that across all of our preclinical data.

And then at the same time, we know that very important antiviral drug; the ALTs go down very quickly. And so what we look at is we’re doing our dose ranging studies is antiviral activity versus ALT normalization as long as you’re getting high antiviral activity and good ALT normalization, you should be in a safe range. And so we’re trying to make sure that we put these drugs and we think is a safe, but effective range.

Unidentified Company Representative

And again the hold I think is, is nothing to do with issues concerning the liver ALT concerning the heart, concerning the kidney, concerning mitochondrial tox or anything like that. For all of those I think we’ve done extensive testing, we have potentially very good margins, we believe in terms of preclinical margins. It really comes down to the single Ames strain that is the issue that is holding is up at this point.

Brian Skorney – Robert W. Baird

Gotcha, thanks guys, I appreciate it.

Operator

Next question is from David Ferreiro from Oppenheimer. Your line is open.

David Ferreiro – Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.

Thanks for taking my question. I apologize if you already said this. But has the FDA asked for animal carcinogenicity study is following the positive Ames test?

Unidentified Company Representative

Dave, what we need to do is, if we can’t prove definitively that that this is artifactual in nature then we’ve got to go to probably more and potentially longer-term definitive study. So we’re not at that point yet. We think as we said in our remarks that we believe this is artifactual in nature and trying to determine or make that the case that this is not clinically relevant, we are still in that back finding mode right now.

David Ferreiro – Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.

Al right. Then, there is two sort of related question. First if they do ask for those kinds of studies would that be a deal breaker and then second the Ames test is not perfect, but you still do it for a reason, given the fact you have so many pre-clinical compounds or a pretty good chemistry platform for developing these kind of compounds, why even bother to go forward if you had any backup compound just not that (inaudible).

Unidentified Company Representative

Yeah. It’s a good question by we believe in the potential for 2963. as we said pre-clinically we really the profile of this, you are right the Ames test is not perfect, but its one that that is most relied upon by the regulatory authorizes and so we strongly believe that this drug has potential and that this finding is out of actual in nature.

You are right we have other compound behind this that we could look at that don’t – the next one that doesn’t have this Ames issue, we will have cross that bridge when we get to it, but right now that’s – our consideration is that we would try to bring both of these forward and we think we will ultimately be able to prove that this is not a genotoxic compound and that this is in fact an out of fact.

David Ferreiro – Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.

Thanks

Operator

(Operator Instructions). Our next question is from (inaudible) from Barclays. Your line is open.

Unidentified Analyst

Hey good morning, thanks for talking my questions. I actually have one related to Ames test again, it’s been few years since I did this test in labs, but I remember you would ask for a repeat test at this rate. It is a signal coming from the repeat test, and also like I think David was saying that he always do – are you talking about like no solid effort about what you are going to in testing driven patients?

Unidentified Company Representative

So, yes we have repeated this test with a compound itself and as we said the same brand that we do get a repeat positive in terms of the dosage basically we think we’re somewhere 500 to a thousand fold above the kind of concentrations that we will ever get for the compound in the liver.

So this is a very, very high concentrations basically as far as we are aware. I will say also that one rather confounding factor is that we’ve looked at other prodrugs, we’ve looked at the nucleoside they basically are negative in the tests. So this is one of the reasons why we think that this result is some sort of anomaly and we are trying very hard to track down the mechanistic basis of it at this point.

Unidentified Analyst

And then David this is a standard batter of test right I think everyone is using the same trends right.

David Standring

Yes and as Ron mentioned earlier there were many marketed drugs that actually have scored positive in one of these tests or more.

Unidentified Analyst

Got it. And then when should we expect are there anything we should expect from the 719 program at AASLD this year.

Unidentified Company Representative

Yeah. I mean we haven’t disclosed that yet. So stay tuned I think the we’re still in the process of holding some things together but I think from our perspective hopefully, we will have some updates on our NS5A program but we haven’t disclosed the specifics yet. So stay tuned on that.

Unidentified Analyst

Okay. Thanks, Ron.

Ronald C. Renaud, Jr.

Yep.

Operator

Our next question is from Liisa Bayko from JMP Securities. Your line is open.

Unidentified Analyst

Hi, good morning actually it’s Heather in for Liisa. I just had a quick question going to Samatasvir on the HELIX-2 study. Just wondering if there has been – if you have looking at term drug interactions or if you will need to do any dose adjustments because of the Ritonavir boosted on nuke and just sort of where you are with those studies?

Douglas Mayers

At this point we have done drug interaction for both the two drug and three drug combination and so far we have not had to dose adjustments.

Unidentified Analyst

Great. Thank you very much.

Operator

Our last question is from Brian Skorney from Robert W. Baird. Your line is open.

Brian Skorney – Robert W. Baird & Co.

Thanks for follow-up. I know I have asked you this before Ron, but maybe to get some insight, do (inaudible).

Ronald C. Renaud, Jr.

We haven’t disclosed structure Brian.

Brian Skorney – Robert W. Baird & Co.

Okay. Let me keep trying.

Ronald C. Renaud, Jr.

Yep. Keep trying that’s all right.

Brian Skorney – Robert W. Baird & Co.

Thanks.

Ronald C. Renaud, Jr.

You bet.

Operator

Thank you we have no more questions. Thank you I will turn the call over to Teri Dahlman for closing remarks.

Teri Dahlman

Thank you for your time today your interest in Idenix. We’re in the office, so feel free to call if you have any question.

Operator

Ladies and gentlemen, this does concludes today’s conference. You may now disconnect. Thank you.

Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS.

If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com. Thank you!

Source: Idenix Pharmaceuticals' CEO Discusses Q2 2013 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
This Transcript
All Transcripts