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

Executives

Vincent Milano - President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director

Richard Morris – Controller and Chief Accounting Officer

Colin Broom – Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer

Daniel Soland – Chief Operating Officer, Vice President, and Chief Commercial Officer

Robert Pietrusko – Vice President, Global Regulatory Affairs and Quality

William Roberts – Vice President of Corporate Communications

Robert Doody – Manager of Corporate Communications

Analysts

Jason Napodano – Zacks

Gregory Frykman - Stanford Group

Biren Amin - Stanford Group

Stephen Willey - Thomas Weisel

Brian Schweney - SIG

Yale Jen - Maxim Group

Rachel McMinn - Cowen

Meg Malloy - Goldman Sachs

Michael King - Rodman & Renshaw

Liisa Bayko - JMP Securities

Brian Rye - Janney Montgomery

Thomas Wei - Piper Jaffray

Joel Sendek - Lazard Capital Markets

ViroPharma Incorporated (VPHM) Q2 2008 Earnings Call July 30, 2008 9:00 AM ET

Operator

Thank you for holding, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the ViroPharma Teleconference Call. At this time, all lines are in a listen-only mode. There will be an opportunity to ask questions at the end of today’s call, and instructions will be given at that time. Today’s conference is being recorded. Thank you for your attention.

I will now turn the call over to your host, Mr. Will Roberts.

William Roberts

Good morning and welcome to ViroPharma’s conference call and webcast to discuss ViroPharma’s second quarter 2008 financial results and other business matters. This call is scheduled for approximately one hour.

Certain statements regarding future demand for Vancocin; the timing of clinical studies and data, and our ability to receive regulatory approvals in the U.S., Canada, and E.U. and subsequently commercialize our drug candidates; our ability to successfully complete the acquisition of Lev Pharmaceuticals; and all elements of our 2008 guidance made during this conference call, are forward-looking statements.

As you know, forward-looking statements involve substantial risks and uncertainties and the actual results may differ materially from those projected in such forward-looking statements.

The development, marketing, and sale of pharmaceutical products are subject to risks and uncertainties. As a result, our actual results could differ materially from those results projected and/or implied by this conference call.

Please refer to the press release issued this morning and to our filings with the SEC, for more information regarding the risks and uncertainties that could cause future results to differ materially from those expectations expressed in this conference call.

And with that, I’ll turn the call over to Vincent Milano, ViroPharma’s President and Chief Executive Officer.

Vincent Milano

Thanks Will, and good morning and welcome to everyone listening to ViroPharma’s conference call today. With me on the call this morning, in addition to Will, are Bob Doody, also of Corporate Communications; Rich Morris, our Controller and Chief Accounting Officer, and my teammates on the ViroPharma Management Team, Colin Broom, Dan Soland and Bob Pietrusko.

This morning Colin will provide an update on the progress of the pipeline and Rich will discuss our financial results for the quarter and year-to-date.

Let me begin by sharing a few comments about our progress since the end of the first quarter. Since our last call we have accomplished some great things throughout our business.

First, with maribavir, in addition to our internal momentum as we prepare for launch of this important product, we completed enrollment in our pivotal Phase III stem cell transplant study; disclosed our timeline for data, and initial filings with U.S., European, and Canadian regulators; and the Phase II SCT data were published in the scientific journal Blood.

We also continued positive momentum in enrollment in our second Phase III study of maribavir in liver transplant patients.

Our financial performance was excellent. The second quarter sales of the Vancocin, our drug for Clostridium difficile infection or CDI, were strong. The $65.4 million in net Vancocin sales is a new single quarter sales record for us.

The reasons for these strong sales, we believe, includes the increasing awareness of the clinical data showing Vancocin’s superiority over Metronidazole in patients with severe CDI and that doctors may be already adopting the forthcoming CDI treatment guidelines.

Thanks to these robust sales, we have increased our Vancocin net sales guidance for 2008 to be between $220 and $240 million.

Also the second quarter of 2008 represents our 14th consecutive quarter of profitability and positive cash flows; few biotech companies have achieved this. We ended the second quarter of this year with cash and cash equivalents of $633 million and working capital of $644 million.

On that topic, earlier this month we announced our intent to acquire Lev Pharmaceuticals for $442 million of upfront consideration. Excluding merger-related costs, we will use $356 million in cash for this acquisition.

This leaves us with a significant amount of cash to continue to grow our business. We believe that this acquisition will bring to ViroPharma a near-term product opportunity called Cinryze, which has the potential of $250 to $350 million in peak year sales with a prophylactic indication in hereditary angioedema and may present some interesting life cycle management opportunities.

We structured the upfront considerations to value only prophylactic approval; however, we also built in the means for Lev shareholders to participate in additional upside.

Should Cinryze experience success beyond our base assumptions and as such achieve certain regulatory and commercial milestones, two additional contingent value payments will become payable supported by the product’s success.

Last week, we attended an FDA advisory committee meeting on the topic of locally acting GI drugs. As expected this panel did not discuss Vancocin or any other drug by name but we are encouraged that the FDA conducted a public forum to discuss the general nature of bioequivalence requirements for locally acting GI drugs.

The committee stressed the importance of determining safety related to any absorption. This is particularly relevant to C.diff patients who have an abnormal GI tract. We have concerns that the panel did not include any clinicians who are critical to understanding the impact of the disease on BE requirements and the risk to patients of making incorrect recommendations.

However, as FDA has indicated that we can expect the opportunity for public input regarding bioequivalence methods for Vancocin specifically, we anticipate that it would include such clinical and scientific input at that time.

With that, I will turn the call over to Colin for an update on our clinical pipeline progress during the second quarter.

Colin Broom

Thank you, Vince and good morning to everyone on the call today. I will first provide a brief update on maribavir as we made significant progress over the last quarter. First and foremost, we announced in May that we had completed enrollment in our Phase III study of maribavir in stem cell transplant patients.

As a reminder, this study is a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, multi center, pivotal Phase III study in 681 allogeneic stem cell transplant patients.

The primary efficacy end point will be the instance of CMV disease within six months post-transplant, and as you will recall, in our Phase II study, we saw no CMV disease in any maribavir patient up to a maximum of five months post-transplant follow-up.

We will also be assessing several key secondary end points, including incidence of initiation of pre-emptive anti-CMV therapy, incidence of graft versus host disease, mortality, and CMV disease free survival.

During the quarter, we also advanced many of the additional activities required for our regulatory submissions. We made good progress with our two year carcinogenesis studies in animals and conducted additional Phase I studies that further characterized the clinical pharmacology profile of maribavir, including the successful completion of a QTc study.

In May of this year, we disclosed the timing of future developmental milestones for maribavir in stem cell transplant. Data collection for the six month assessments will continue through the end of November 2008, which should allow us to disclose top line Phase III clinical data in the first quarter of 2009.

From there, we anticipate that in the third quarter of 2009 we will file our initial NDA in the U.S., NDS in Canada, and MAA in Europe for the SCT indication based on the six month assessments.

We intend to file our supplemental NDA, NDS, and MAA variation for the solid organ transplant indication as soon as possible following receipt of initial marketing approvals in SCT.

Now our non-toxigenic C. difficile or NTCD pre-clinical opportunity also continued to make progress during the quarter. However, we have experienced manufacturing challenges, which we are addressing that will preclude us from reaching our goal of first-in-man in 2008.

Now regarding our acquisition of Lev Pharmaceuticals, I want to comment on the remarkable fit with ViroPharma posed by this acquisition and the great unmet medical need that we intend to address with Lev’s product, Cinryze.

This acquisition presents an opportunity for us to have another near-term important and life saving therapy. Cinryze is a focused market opportunity, addressable with modest additional infrastructure and by our analyses has a high likelihood of near-term approval for prophylaxis.

Cinryze targets a dangerous disorder called hereditary angioedema or HAE, often referred to as C1-inhibitor deficiency. This debilitating and rare disorder affects up to 10,000 patients in the U.S. with at least 4,600 of them already having being identified.

HAE is an inflammatory disease caused by the hereditary inability to produce sufficient active C1 esterase inhibitor. It can manifest as severe swelling in almost every body system.

Often it is the extremities that are functionally disabled by an attack of HAE, though the most dangerous and complex manifestation is far more severe, affecting the larynx, which often requires intubation and tracheotomy and may lead to death from asphyxiation.

On average, attacks last up to three days and occur once a month, impacting a patient’s ability to hold a job, to go to school, to attend social events, and live a normal life.

In many HAE patients, these attacks occur far more often and unfortunately in up to 40% of patients eventually die from an HAE attack, generally the most severe laryngeal form before an attack can be correctly identified and treated in an ER setting.

Cinryze is replacement C1 esterase inhibitor therapy and targets the underlying biological cause of the disease. We believe that it will be the first new prophylactic therapy available for these patients and will offer a life changing therapeutic option.

Based on where Lev is in their regulatory process with Cinryze, we believe that this therapy has a high probability of approval for HAE prophylaxis in the near term.

Cinryze has orphan drug designation, priority review by the FDA, and received a unanimous 21 to 0 vote in favor of approval in prophylaxis from an FDA advisory panel. Lev is now in labeling and Phase IV discussions with the FDA.

Remember that the FDA issued a complete response letter to Lev in early 2008, to create specific issues including CMC that needed to be addressed before this therapy can be approved.

However, as part of our diligence, we visited and assessed their manufacturing plants and evaluated the information in Lev’s response to the questions raised by FDA. We are comfortable with the response, but of course, FDA still must weigh it.

This acquisition presents a great near term opportunity for us and our shareholders and a very important drug for these patients. We look forward to communicating more as we move through the acquisition process.

With that I will turn the call over to Rich Morris for an overview of our financial results today.

Richard Morris

Thank you, Colin and good morning everyone. First, Vancocin’s performance during the second quarter and first half of the year. In the second quarter of 2008 we reported net sales of just over $65 million compared to $56 million in the second quarter of 2007, marking a new quarterly sales record for ViroPharma.

Also impressive, net sales in the first six months of 2008 were $116 million compared to $105 million in the first six months of 2007.

Next our expenses, during the second quarter of 2008, as expected, our investments in our clinical pipeline doubled over last year’s second quarter. R&D expense for the second quarter of 2008 was $15 million, compared to $7 million in the second quarter of 2007.

With year-to-date, our R&D expenses have reached $30 million compared to $13 million in the first half of 2007. The increases in both periods were driven primarily by the costs associated with increased enrollment in our Phase III programs for maribavir.

Our selling, general, and administrative expenses for the second quarter of 2008 were approximately $16 million, compared to $8 million for the second quarter of 2007.

Our SG&A expense has grown from $15 million in the first half of 2007 to $29 million in the first half of 2008. The growth in both periods was due primarily to increasing compensation costs and an increase in our medical education activities and marketing efforts.

The increase in the compensation cost, including share based compensation, denoted primarily from increased head count for our European operations and our Vancocin sales force.

We reported net income of $24 million for the second quarter of 2008 compared to $32 million in the second quarter of 2007. The difference is due to the increased investments in both our clinical pipeline and our commercial efforts that I just described, and a decrease in investment income due to lower interest rates on our short term investments.

For the second quarter of 2008, we reported earnings per share of $0.30 per diluted share compared to $0.39 per diluted share in the second quarter of 2007. For the six months ended June 30, 2008, we reported net income of $42 million as compared to $54 million in 2007.

We reported earnings per share of $0.51 per diluted share for the six months ended June 30, 2008 compared to $0.70 per diluted share for the same period in 2007.

Our effective tax rate of 26% for the second quarter of 2008 was up from 23% in the second quarter of 2007. Our tax rate for the first six months of 2008 was 27%, down from 31% for the first six months of 2007.

The decrease in the effective rate for the six months ended June 30, 2008 as compared to the comparative period in 2007 is primarily due to the impact of our current estimate of the orphan drug credit for maribavir.

For the full year of 2008, we expect our effective tax rate will be between 25% and 30% which include an estimate of our orphan drug credit and excludes the impact of any potential changes in our valuation allowance or any other discreet items.

Our balance sheet as of June 30 improved further over that of March 31. Our cash, cash equivalent, and short term investments reached $633 million and working capital increased to $644 million.

Remember that cash and cash equivalents along with working capital will be reduced concurrent with the close of our acquisition of Lev. However, we expect to close the deal in the fourth quarter with a significant amount of cash remaining on our balance sheet with the ability to grow our cash position further, then to positive cash flow from operations.

By all financial measures the second quarter was very strong. I will now comment on our updated guidance for 2008. First, this guidance excludes the impact of the acquisition and operating activities of Lev as we have not yet closed the transaction. Also, our guidance assumes no generic competition.

Next, we have increased our guidance for Vancocin net sales. We now expect net sales to reach a range of $220 to $240 million for the full year 2008. We have also increased our guidance for combined research and development and selling, general, and administrative expenses.

These expenses, excluding the impact of FAS 123R, are now expected to be $110 to $120 million. We expect that the FAS 123R impact to the expenses I just described will be between $9 and $11 million. So including the impact of FAS 123R expense, the R&D and SG&A expenses are expected to be between $119 and $131 million.

As a separate note, assuming that our acquisition of Lev closes in the fourth quarter we would expect to spend up to an additional $5 to $10 million during the fourth quarter of the year to cover the expenses associated with pre-launch activities for Cinryze and launching it into the U.S. market.

A strong first half, and we expect it to continue through the balance of 2008. I will now turn this back over to Vince for some closing comments.

Vincent Milano

Thank you, Rich. ViroPharma is in a position to continue to deliver on the goals of the business. For our shareholders, our goal is to provide multiple opportunities for growth. For patients suffering from a myriad of significant diseases, our goal is to improve and save lives. For the ViroPharma employees, these two goals are interconnected.

For shareholders, we believe that we are poised to provide growth by developing multiple streams of revenue and earnings potential. With Vancocin we are doing that today. During the second quarter we generated record revenues and we expect to generate between $220 and $240 million of sales this year alone.

With maribavir, we have the opportunity to launch a drug that we believe will generate between $400 and $500 million in peak year sales.

With Cinryze we believe that we will launch a drug that will generate $250 to $350 million in peak year sales.

We also have a very strong balance sheet today with over $633 million in cash and cash equivalents and once the Lev acquisition closes we will still have a strong balance sheet with the ability to grow our cash position further, thanks to our positive cash flow.

For patients suffering from life threatening diseases; first, with Vancocin we are improving and saving lives today by providing the only proven safe and effective drug for severe CDI.

With maribavir, we intend to offer transplant patients a safe, effective, and much needed drug to prevent disease caused by CMV, the most common cause of viral inflection and death after transplant.

For these transplant patients, maribavir may offer a compelling treatment alternative targeting a great unmet medical need.

The same is true for Cinryze. There is no doubt that the great medical need for new prophylactic options for patients with HAE. We expect to offer HAE patients a new therapy to allow them to prevent their attacks altogether and enable them to regain control of their lives.

For our employees, our goal is to develop and commercialize these novel and important drugs for patients and to provide new growth opportunities for our shareholders. The first half of 2008 has been a period of great progress on these fronts.

Thank you for your attention today and your continued interest in ViroPharma. As a reminder, available for questions this morning with me are Dan, Colin, Bob, Rich, Will, and Bobby.

Question-and-Answer Session

Operator

(Operator Instructions) The first question is from Joel Sendek - Lazard Capital Markets.

Joel Sendek - Lazard Capital Markets

Hi, thanks a lot. Two questions; first of all, Vin, you mentioned your assessment of the recent panel meeting, and I am trying to interpret what you said. I am wondering if you expect another panel meeting?

Vincent Milano

Bob, why don’t you take the first question on the panel?

Robert Pietrusko

Okay, the FDA Advisory Committee Meeting met and at the introduction, as we anticipated, FDA stated that this meeting was not about any specific products and it was for general feedback on the bioequivalence measures for locally acting GI products.

They maintained that stature in addressing the general issues regarding bioequivalence for these products. The committee members in their deliberations identified safety as a key issue regarding the absorption for poorly absorbable and non-absorbable products that the plasma concentrations needed to be evaluated for the safety of these particular products.

We feel that this is relevant for patients with the C. diff in the evaluation of oral Vancocin because of the abnormal GI tract. In our current discussions with FDA, they had mentioned that there will be a process for specific discussions of bioequivalence products and we anticipate that in future.

Joel Sendek - Lazard Capital Markets

And will that be another panel you think?

Vincent Milano

We don’t know what the venue will be, Joel. It could be another panel; it could be a notice and comment process. They haven’t indicated what the process would be or what the steps would be.

Joel Sendek - Lazard Capital Markets

Okay, but there is definitely something more to come?

Vincent Milano

That’s what they have informed us of, yes.

Joel Sendek - Lazard Capital Markets

Okay, and then quickly on the Lev acquisition, can you give us any sense as to when you will give us guidance on how much the spend will be post the acquisition for 2009?

Vincent Milano

It will be part of our 2009 guidance discussion which, if history is our guide, we typically do that in the beginning of January.

Joel Sendek - Lazard Capital Markets

Okay. Thank you.

Operator

Our next question comes is from Thomas Wei - Piper Jaffray.

Thomas Wei - Piper Jaffray

Thanks. A follow up on the last question, did you talk to the FDA specifically after this panel meeting occurred, and they told you that this was not the panel meeting or the public discussion around Vancocin, that there would be something separate or is this also some much earlier conversation and your interpretation that the panel meeting last week does not suffice?

Vincent Milano

We did not discuss with the agency specifically anything about this meeting that occurred on 23rd of July. The feedback that we received regarding public input on the Vancocin specific situation is from an earlier time point.

Thomas Wei - Piper Jaffray

I see. I am still trying to make heads or tails of what exactly the panel meeting meant for Vancocin and you’ve called out one comment, but it really wasn’t the focus of the debate at the panel meeting. Does the actual substance of the debate there have any applicability to Vancocin in your view?

Vincent Milano

Let me maybe make a first comment and then my colleagues can join in. Remember that the committee meeting had a particular focus on the solubility of the low soluble products. Without regards to solubility the safety issue is germane.

Whether one thinks that Vancocin is highly soluble or low solubility that the safety issue around absorption is still the same. And so the reason that we shared this point this morning frankly is because we think this is a very important point that relates to Vancocin even though again the meeting wasn’t about Vancocin.

Robert Pietrusko

One other thing is that during the discussion they talked about excipients and the variability on bioequivalence and further research is needed in that area; that was another take-home message that we saw in discussing bioequivalence for local GI drugs.

Thomas Wei - Piper Jaffray

One other question on Lev Pharmaceuticals. I was going back through some of the prior comments that Lev had made and that you made on your conference call earlier, about the acute indication.

I am still a little bit confused why the FDA has ignored that part of the application; can you say whether or not there was anything in the complete response letter as it regards to acute and why Lev seems to be a little bit more aggressive on their chances of getting that approved?

Vincent Milano

Bob, you can make a comment on the letter and then we can make a comment on behalf of our friends at Lev in terms of their positioning.

Robert Pietrusko

Okay, as part of the complete response letter from FDA, there were questions regarding the acute treatment and prophylaxis. A complete response was provided to the FDA and at the time of the advisory committee, the FDA felt that they had completed a sufficient review of the prophylaxis data and indication to bring that forward to the advisory committee and it has been stated, the FDA said that the acute treatment process was still under review and we are still anticipating feedback from FDA on that.

Vincent Milano

We are not going to comment on comments made by the Lev team but our view on the acute indication is that, it appears to us in our diligence that the FDA is very focused on prophylaxis and so we organized the acquisition and the structure of the deal to focus on where we believe the highest probability of success lies.

That being said, we are interested as soon as we are able to to get engaged and involved in understanding maybe more deeply what a path forward for acute could be that would make acute treatment have a possibility for Cinryze.

We are not in a position to do that today because we haven’t cleared our HSR, we can’t work as closely with Lev yet to work on strategic imperatives, if you will, to attack the acute indication.

But there has been no commentary from FDA one way or the other, frankly, other than to say we are focused on prophylaxis.

Thomas Wei - Piper Jaffray

Thank you.

Operator

Our next question is from Brian Rye - Janney Montgomery.

Brian Rye - Janney Montgomery

Thanks and good morning everyone. Two quick questions. First, I was wondering if you could update us on what wholesaler inventory levels were; if there was any change in buying patterns during the quarter that might have influenced the sales figure?

Secondly a housekeeping question, looks like the last couple of press releases referred solely to the term maribavir with no mention of the term CAMVIA. I was wondering if CAMVIA is still going to be the trade name once it’s approved or if a new trade name is being contemplated?

Daniel Soland

I will take the inventory question and I will ask Bob to do the discussion on trade name and where we are with the FDA. On the inventory question, we are in a normal range for inventory. We don’t see a stock-in by the wholesalers. A normal range that we have had over the last year.

Brian Rye - Janney Montgomery

So, on the name CAMVIA?

Robert Pietrusko

On the name, CAMVIA, as you know, that requires FDA endorsement and we are in the process of evaluating the local sound-alike names. The trade name may be a bit different than that. We are hoping for the sound-alike CAMVIA name. But we need to have that submitted and reviewed by the agency.

The other part of that is too, it cannot be confirmed until just approval because there may be other candidates in line that actually could knock out the name and other companies have experienced that. So, we are hopeful and as soon as we have information we certainly will provide that.

Brian Rye - Janney Montgomery

Thanks. Good quarter.

Operator

Our next question is from Liisa Bayko - JMP Securities.

Liisa Bayko - JMP Securities

First of all, can you just remind us of the trial statistics that we should be looking for the stem cell transplant and what would be required for approval just in that indication?

Colin Broom

Let me just be clear about the question. The end point of course is the instance of CMV disease within six months post transplant for the stem cell transplant study. And the statistics will include that primary end point. The statistical target there will be to have a p-value at 0.05 or less, which is standard for a pivotal Phase III trial.

We have discussed with the agency the acceptability of filing with one robust Phase III trial; that’s both FDA and the European regulatory authorities. Remember, we also have the supportive data from our completed and recently published Phase II trial in stem cell transplant.

Liisa Bayko - JMP Securities

So, it is robust for the one trial than it’s p less than 0.05?

Colin Broom

That’s correct. So it’s the standard target for a pivotal trial.

Liisa Bayko - JMP Securities

Great. On Cinryze peak sales of $250 to $350 million; does that include the acute indication or is that just prophylaxis?

Vincent Milano

Just prophylaxis.

Liisa Bayko - JMP Securities

If you include acute what do you think it could get to?

Vincent Milano

We’re not in a position to answer that question today Liisa, but we would love to be able to do that at a later call.

Liisa Bayko - JMP Securities

Okay. And CAMVIA, your peak sales estimates there are $400 to $500 million, is that both solid and stem cell or just stem cell?

Vincent Milano

It’s both.

Liisa Bayko - JMP Securities

Finally, great quarter with Vancocin; do you see that as a trend or is it more seasonal and then how the sales force working out?

Daniel Soland

As Vin mentioned in his opening remarks, there is some very powerful data that’s been available for some time. The physicians have had a chance to suggest that Vancocin is superior in certain patient groups to Metronidazole.

Along with that, these draft guidelines which are not official yet, a lot of physicians have also become aware of these draft guidelines and suggesting that Vancocin is re-positioned into more favorable spot for us, and in these draft guidelines it’s easier and more clear definition of who these patients are, along with our various promotional efforts seems to be driving Vancocin sales.

Unfortunately for us it’s very difficult to measure rate of disease because the CDC data usually is at least two years old, and market share becomes difficult because Metronidazole is used in a number of different areas within the hospital, but sales look very strong.

Liisa Bayko - JMP Securities

And then how is the sales force?

Daniel Soland

The early indicators are positive but the test is not complete yet.

Liisa Bayko - JMP Securities

Thank you very much.

Operator

Our next question is from Michael King - Rodman & Renshaw.

Michael King - Rodman & Renshaw

Thanks for taking my question and let me extend my congratulations.

Vincent Milano

Good morning, Mike.

Michael King - Rodman & Renshaw

To follow up on Vancocin, Vin, I don’t know if you commented in the formal remarks about price versus script growth in the quarter. So could we get a little color on that?

Vincent Milano

Dan?

Daniel Soland

We took our last price increase in the beginning of February, so there should have been little or no price impact. There may have been some mix benefit due to a larger percentage of 250s being used as compared to 125 and the rest appears to be driven by script volume.

Michael King - Rodman & Renshaw

Okay. And I was wondering if you would care to comment about the percentage of the 125s versus the 250s currently?

Daniel Soland

Historically it has been very close to 50-50 relationship. But we have seen recent trend to more 250s.

Michael King - Rodman & Renshaw

250s, okay, great.

Vincent Milano

These things fluctuate, Mike, one or two points every month, so it’s not a dramatic shift, but as you know the differences, it is enough to make a difference in terms of the net sales numbers though.

Michael King - Rodman & Renshaw

Right. A couple of other housekeeping items. The SG&A grew from just under 13 in the previous quarter to 16; fairly big bump for you in terms of sequential growth. So, can we get any color on that and with that the run rate?

Vincent Milano

I’d say the two primary drivers to SG&A going up are a full quarter of the sales force. They started work in late February but in the first quarter there was only modest coverage for those folks.

The second piece is the European operations has expanded between Q1 and Q2 as we get ready for the pre-launch activities for maribavir. So these are the two big drivers, and we do anticipate that the European group will continue to grow at a modest rate for 2008.

The sales force at this point we don’t have plans in place to expand it for Vancocin. We would like to be in position to do that but we are not doing that today. And it’s all in the context of our guidance overall in terms of the R&D and SG&A expenses.

Michael King - Rodman & Renshaw

Okay. Your tax rate bounces around a lot, is that going to remain the case?

Vincent Milano

Rich, you want to take that question.

Richard Morris

We would expect for the full year to be within the range of 25% to 30%. The adjustments that you referred to relate to the estimates of our orphan drug credit which has a little bit of variability to them based upon qualified expenses, but we would expect the full year to be 25% to 30%.

Michael King - Rodman & Renshaw

Okay. I was sorry to jump around, but can I come back to SG&A for a second? In the legal and accounting stuff for the Lev acquisition, would that be in addition to the SG&A guidance or will you give updated guidance?

Richard Morris

We’ll give updated guidance, and typically those costs get reflected in the acquisition accounting, which we are not doing that today, but you will see, we anticipate filing the S4 in August, and of course, we will have pro forma financial statements which will have more details on some of the merger-related costs as well as the acquisition accounting.

Michael King - Rodman & Renshaw

Yes, okay. And your guidance seems pretty conservative. I know there is some seasonality there, but what I am trying to reconcile is the uptake or adoption of the standards with the guidance which implies a flat to down second half, so help us think about that a little bit please.

Vincent Milano

Dan, maybe you want to comment?

Daniel Soland

Again, as was mentioned earlier, we had a terrific second quarter and we hope that those sales continue on that trend, although, remember historically the second quarter is usually our largest sales volume quarter and it starts to fall off in the third and fourth.

What could happen this year is that we could see a more positive impact in the third and fourth quarter due to an increase in market share from the data that’s available. The physicians have had a chance to digest that data; they are starting to see these draft guidelines. That could impact sales in the third and fourth quarter. But I think the $220 to $240 million today is a reasonable number for us going forward.

Vincent Milano

We are obviously very encouraged by what we have seen in Q2 but it’s relatively young data, if you will. It’s new that this quarter is higher than we expected and so the adoption or what appears to be the adoption of the guidelines, maybe before they are finalized, the knowledge in the physician community about the data that substantiates the value of Vancocin versus Metronidazole is all very positive.

We hope that continues but we are not going to put guidance out there that assumes it continues.

Michael King - Rodman & Renshaw

Okay, will do, I appreciate that. And finally, I don’t know if you want to tip your hand at all, but I am just wondering, we’ve asked a number of questions, Bob, about FDA policy towards poorly absorbed drugs, but I am wondering how much more are you going to work through the Citizen’s Petition process as opposed through open public hearings and advisory panel meetings and the like of that?

Robert Pietrusko

I think our approach has always been, Mike, that it’s a multiple pronged approach and we need to make sure that the FDA gets a fair balance perspective on all the issues that are relevant to the topic and so I expect that we will continue to do that multiple prong approach whether it’s through additional advisory committee meetings that are held that we are invited to participate in.

The Citizen’s Petition right now is our vehicle to convey information to the public about the issues and questions that we think need to be answered. I think it’s going to be a combination and I expect it to continue that way.

Michael King - Rodman & Renshaw

Okay, great. Thanks and thanks for indulging me.

Operator

Our next question is from Meg Malloy - Goldman Sachs.

Meg Malloy - Goldman Sachs

Good morning. Just one little nitpicky clarification. When you mentioned the $5 to $10 million free launch expenses on HAE, is that included in your SG&A guidance or is that in addition to?

Vincent Milano

In addition to.

Meg Malloy - Goldman Sachs

Okay. And are you getting explicit feedbacks through your sales force that suggests that clinicians are adopting the guidelines ahead of time?

Vincent Milano

What we are hearing through our sales force is that physicians are very, very interested in the data. That what appears to be driving physicians is the data that’s available and the clarity that that data brings to the benefit of Vancocin versus the current standard Metronidazole.

Meg Malloy - Goldman Sachs

Okay. And I know it’s very early days and I think you said it was a little too early to evaluate the impact of the sales, but do you think it can account for some of the improvement that was seen in Q2?

Vincent Milano

I wish I had better data on that and it could be that I have a commercial background. I would like to believe that the sales forces are having a positive impact.

Meg Malloy - Goldman Sachs

Okay, fair enough; it’s too early.

Vincent Milano

It’s too early.

Meg Malloy - Goldman Sachs

Okay. And on HAE, I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on your thoughts about life cycle management and what your thinking is there?

Vincent Milano

I think our primary focus and the reason for the deal was for us to have a product that would be used for prophylaxis to benefit these patients and that’s why the deal was done, that’s what our focus is today. But that being said, over time, we’ll continue to explore other opportunities for the product, but it’s too early to discuss that at this time.

Daniel Soland

I think part of it is frankly the acute, is there a way for us to work to get an acute treatment ahead of CSL Behring and we’ll be anxious and interested in doing that.

Frankly all of these things are upside to the way we structured the deal, but we see that there are opportunities between acute and whether there is other territories or opportunities; whether it is different formulations that we could provide; different indications, so there is many, many different things.

I want to stress, though, that our focus needs to be on launching prophylaxis. We have to stay laser focused on that to maximize the value of that indication. But one of the things that’s interesting to us and we would hope interesting to our shareholders is that there is growth beyond just the growth in the prophylaxis indication itself.

Meg Malloy - Goldman Sachs

Okay, thanks. And one final follow up, if I may, any update, Colin, on the enrolment for the liver studies; liver transplant for maribavir?

Colin Broom

As I said I am very happy with the way that the momentum was built in the liver transplant study. As you know, as a matter of policy, we don’t give interim updates on where we are with enrollment, but be assured that when we complete the important milestones such as completion of enrollment, we will announce that, but very happy with the way things are going.

What I have said, is that we anticipate completing the trial and to be in a position to submit an SDA, or sNDA, an MAA variation, very shortly after we have approval for the initial indication.

Meg Malloy - Goldman Sachs

Okay. Thanks much.

Operator

Our next question is from Rachel McMinn - Cowen.

Rachel McMinn - Cowen

On CAMVIA, can you give us a sense on when you will be in a position to start the kidney study and what influence has timing on that?

Colin Broom

We have the kidney study. We do intend to do a kidney study in kidney. We are in the planning stages of that at this point. But we still need to clarify the design of that study with regulatory agencies.

We haven’t given any definitive timelines on the study but don’t anticipate as that starting until sometime next year. We certainly need to remain absolutely focused on completing the analysis of the stem cell study and get our NDA. Our initial indication, of course, completion of the liver study.

But very important work going on and we will update you when I have more information and more definitive timelines.

Vincent Milano

I think, additionally, the kidney study from our point of view is not a requirement for approval. It’s additional organ, which provides additional upside from both here and Europe and it’s been very actively discussed within the company.

Rachel McMinn - Cowen

And in terms of that study though, is it specifically about resources and really wanting to have the company focus on getting the stem cells done or it’s just something that you don’t think it really needs to be done so there’s no hurry and why not just wait until 2009?

Vincent Milano

I would say that from a resource standpoint we definitely have all hands on deck not only for the stem cell study, but remember the liver study is ongoing and both of those require a lot of resources and we’ve dedicated and focused those efforts on that.

Our view is that the kidney study is important but not urgent to the development of maribavir. We want to do that in the context of getting done the things that we’re working on today.

Colin Broom

Rachel, just to elaborate on a few things, again, one of the mistakes often with small companies is to take on too many things. This is a logistical way of managing, so we have to look at these things, do what is very important.

We’d love to do multiple additional studies. There are other studies that we are planning to do in addition to the kidney transplant study, but this an important study to do.

Of course, we convene and we take input from experts in the field including conducting advisory boards and the SOD organ transplant community consider that the differences between the different types of transplant, as long as the profile of the drug is similar in these different patient populations, the data is likely to be applicable across multiple organ types.

That’s really the focus to get the liver transplant data, but of course, we want to get the kidney transplant specifically on the label as well.

Vincent Milano

It’s not a resource constraint issue. If we felt that it was imperative to get this done in a nearer timeframe, we would. We have the cash so we would engage the resources to do that. It’s part of our strategic approach to this.

Robert Pietrusko

The other thing too is, for this particular indication it’s important to us to have feedback from the regulatory authorities, either through protocol assessment or in Europe through the scientific advice process. I think that’s key for this area to have that buy-in an agreement, and of course, that takes time and feedback and we are putting the efforts to that, and providing that information.

Rachel McMinn - Cowen

Okay, that’s very helpful. And then you mentioned something about this two-year carc study in animals, and I am surprised that you would need something since this is really just a three month treatment that you are evaluating, can you just help provide some context around that and help us understand when you would see carcinogenicity data?

Colin Broom

Rachel, the guidelines indeed say that the anticipated treatment is six months or more. Although if you read those guidelines, any drug that’s used for three months in practice may well be used for longer.

Let me just say that we have done mutagenicity studies and we have discussed the conduct of carcinogenicity studies with the FDA and also with European regulators and we agreed that these studies should be done.

Remember that the current products that are used out there do have black box warnings including carcinogenicity. There is a preference for these studies being done, and therefore it’s important.

We would like to do these studies, because based on what we see and we think the possibility of maribavir being carcinogenic is much lower than currently available agents. I think that would be very important data to have and will be highly positive for physicians to know that this agent hopefully would be free from those liabilities.

Rachel McMinn - Cowen

Okay, that’s helpful. And then last question is on Cinryze; can you talk about what the specific manufacturing issues are and then what happened to Cinryze after the orphan drug status expires; how easily you think it would be genericized?

Vincent Milano

We can’t comment specifically on the issues raised, and Lev did not specifically comment. What we can say is that we’ve read the issues that are in the complete response letter from the agency. We’ve read the response to the complete response letter. We’ve done diligence of sanguine.

Within site visits and the like, we have engaged the services of a former Sieber representative who has gone in and helped us analyze and set up the situation and we believe that the CMC issues raised in the complete response letter have been adequately addressed and it’s left for the FDA to weigh in.

Bob, any additional comments?

Robert Pietrusko

On the latter point after the orphan drug designation and exclusivity period would expire, currently within the U.S. there are no provisions for generic products of a biological. That’s being discussed and debated in the Congress and potential legislation that would be required for that.

The current process is that with these particular products, the process is very important. How it’s manufactured, pasteurized, precipitated, extracted, fractionated, and handled, so this would not be on face value a simple task as it might be with a small molecule.

Rachel McMinn - Cowen

Thanks very much.

Operator

Our next question is from Yale Jen - Maxim Group.

Yale Jen - Maxim Group

Congratulations for a good quarter and thanks for taking my questions.

Since most of the questions has been answered, I only have a brief one. It’s regarding Cinryze. A couple of things; number one is that if you get approved for the prophylaxis by end of this year, and launch the next year, do you anticipate some off label use of the drug for the acute attack?

Daniel Soland

It’s likely that, especially if there is no other treatment available for acute, there will be patients and physicians who will decide to use Cinryze for acute therapy

Yale Jen - Maxim Group

Given the product you have compared to, CSL Behring’s product that you have a longer half life, even their product is approved, do you see this product have any specific advantage for the acute treatment?

Daniel Soland

I know of no advantage the CSL Behring product has for acute attacks over the Cinryze product. Colin, do you want to comment?

Colin Broom

You are correct that the data that we have on the half life does appear to be somewhat longer with Cinryze, so you might say that’s more favorable, particularly in the context of prophylactic therapy. Would there be any difference in terms of acute therapy? We don’t know; there is really no comparative data between the two.

Yale Jen - Maxim Group

Okay, great. And the last question is that of the prophylactics, in your model, what do you think is the average treatment or dosage per patient per year?

Robert Pietrusko

In the draft labeling that is under discussion. I think they speak to the concept of two doses per week and perhaps an additional dose if there is breakthrough therapy. I believe that in the Lev data that was made public their prophylactic product averaged 1.74 doses per patient per week. That’s the best information that we have at this time.

Yale Jen - Maxim Group

Okay, so that’s potentially the way you think about potential on average a patient will receive or will that be dosed that way?

Robert Pietrusko

Yes, that’s the best data that we have today.

Yale Jen - Maxim Group

Okay, great. Thanks a lot and congratulations again.

Operator

Our next question is from Brian Schweney - SIG.

Brian Schweney - SIG

Just a couple of quick follow-up questions. Looking at Cinryze, when the advisory committee was held, Lev indicated that their discussions with the FDA were going really well. It was primarily around label discussions and finalizing manufacturing issues and that they expected the FDA to give word of approval ahead of the PDUFA day of October 14 and even ahead of CSL Behring’s PDUFA date of September 6.

Do you still think that it’s realistic that the FDA will get back with an approval for Cinryze ahead of CSL Behring’s or do you think they will just wait till on or around October 14.

Robert Pietrusko

We cannot speculate on that particular process on what the FDA may or may not do. The PDUFA date is October 14 and we are anticipating something around that time; that’s our latest anticipation.

Vincent Milano

Yes, there is not a tremendous amount of precedent out there for early actions, right Bob?

Robert Pietrusko

Yes.

Brian Schweney - SIG

All right, okay, that’s good. And the other question is could you breakout for us what exactly ViroPharma would owe to Lev and vice versa if the deal were to fall through due to a breach by you, a breach by Lev, or a max clause trigger?

Vincent Milano

I will try to do this in a succinct fashion. The breakup fee associated with termination of the agreement primarily around superior proposal coming in is $18.5 million to us. There are no termination fees that we are obligated to pay Lev upon any termination.

Then there is another provision in the agreement that if it is breach for something other than the superior proposal that it would be $3 to $3.5 million, which is supposed to represent an estimate of the expenses that we’ve incurred to get to that point.

Brian Schweney - SIG

If you were to back out of the deal you would owe Lev that?

Vincent Milano

No. That’s what they would owe us if they breach their covenants and breach the agreement frankly.

Your second part of your question, Brian is around the fees associated with a MAC. There are no fees associated with a MAC. If there is a material adverse change in the business that we determine changes the value significantly, we want to walk away, we exercise our rights under those provisions and walk away.

Brian Schweney - SIG

Okay, so it’s real easy for me to understand then if at any time before the closing of the deal you didn’t want to be in the deal, you could just walk away and there is nothing?

Vincent Milano

No, we we’re obligated under the terms of the agreement but there are events that are reflected in the material adverse change of the agreement that we could walk away for. But again I want to emphasize we don’t believe those are likely to happen.

Brian Schweney - SIG

Right.

Vincent Milano

All the diligence we have gives us optimism that this is moving forward, those are there like they are supposed for the insurance policy, if you will, on the what ifs.

Brian Schweney - SIG

Okay I got you. Could you just remind us what the price increase was back in February on Vancocin?

Vincent Milano

It was 9.4%.

Brian Schweney - SIG

Thanks. Have a good day.

Operator

Our next question is from Stephen Willey - Thomas Weisel.

Stephen Willey - Thomas Weisel

Just one question on Cinryze. I am still kind of struggling on how patients get defined as to whether they need prophylactic or acute treatment. We know that severity is obviously not just a function of the number of attacks, but also of location and I’m assuming that for reimbursement purposes, there’s probably going to have to be some kind of standards that are put in place to define whether a patient be lumped into a prophylactic bucket or not.

Do you’ve any color on that, and then maybe if so, what those standards may look like or what you may envision them to look like?

Daniel Soland

I think your question is a good one and it relates to what patients will get put on prophylaxis and you can characterize that maybe into three buckets. One is the number of attacks per month; second is severity attack or the location of the attack, and the third that we can’t forget about, is the number of days that these patients are incapacitated.

There are some relatively good data available, suggests the average patient is incapacitated 20 to 100 days per year. So any one of those three could be a reason why a physician would decide with his patient to go to prophylaxis.

There are draft guidelines, they have been put together with the (inaudible), and with any draft guidelines it’s almost impossible to predict when those will be made official and public.

I am thinking about our current experience with Vancocin and the draft guidelines for CDI that have been draft for some time. So it’s hard to predict when they will be but I can tell you that the draft that we have seen really focuses on those three areas, and I think at the point of launch each patient will be managed on a case basis.

The early indicators are with these managed care groups is that they will cover the patient for prophylaxis of the product; it will have to be worked through on a case by case basis but there will be coverage.

Stephen Willey - Thomas Weisel

Great, that is helpful, thank you.

Operator

Our next question is from Biren Amin - Stanford Group.

Biren Amin - Stanford Group

If you could provide an update on the timing of publication of the IDSA guidelines for C. diff?

Colin Broom

I wish I could give you a definitive date, but as you know these guidelines are not within our sphere of influence. And as you know, they were presented originally back last autumn at the IDSA (inaudible).

To our knowledge really nothing much has changed, and we are just part of the administrative process or review process that goes on within IDSA (inaudible), within these organizations.

We look forward to seeing them, but unfortunately I can’t give you a specific date, but soon we hope because these are important and will clearly influence the use of Vancocin.

Biren Amin - Stanford Group

Okay. And on the FDA issues related to Vancocin, would you categorize Vancocin as a low soluble drug at pH greater than 7.5?

Colin Broom

First of all, the solubility of agents, as you say, including Vancocin or the active molecule Vancomycin does vary substantially with pH and also of course varies depending on the volume that you define, that it has to be dissolved in.

Based on current paradigm which assumes that the drug goes into the stomach and a healthy individual swallows that with a full glass of water, and basement paradigm for absorbed drugs, Vancomycin would be considered highly soluble.

However, if you look at the different context of how it’s used in patients, where pH will be higher, volume will be considerably lower, if you look at pHs above 7 or 7.5, you could make a case as we indeed did in the Citizen’s Petition that Vancomycin would be considered low solubility.

But the short answer from the FDA’s current paradigm is that Vancomycin is a high solubility drug.

Biren Amin - Stanford Group

So a pH of greater than 7.5, would it not dissolve if it’s low soluble in nature?

Colin Broom

If in certain circumstances whether it’s a low volume and high pH you would not be able to get Vancomycin to dissolve. It’s all a matter of the definition that we are using here, but just to say as far as the OGD guidelines are to solution and the current definitions are concerned, Vancomycin is considered high solubility.

Biren Amin - Stanford Group

So in C. diff patients with lower volume and a higher pH, if Vancocin does not dissolve, what does ViroPharma propose to be the mechanism of action of Vancocin in C. diff patients?

Colin Broom

The discussion that we’re having is really around utilizing in vitro dissolution of predicting clinical outcome. Clearly Vancocin works and works very effectively, there’s clinical data to support that.

I think the issue with the estrogenic drugs would be struggling with how are in vitro test predictive of clinical outcome. And there is currently no link to link, first of all, to define what is the right test or what are the right tests, and second, there’s no link to whatever those tests would be to the clinical outcome.

That’s why in the past for a decade clinical trials have been the standard to judge by equivalence. Bob, do you want to elaborate on something?

Robert Pietrusko

As you brought up, it is a clearly complicated area with different feature pharmacochemical properties, dissolution, solubility, size, changes and pH, change in the GI tract itself, and with this plethora of different considerations, a simple test in a test tube, there are major problems with that as being able to predict what is actually happening in that GI tract, and therefore the need that we believe for clinical trials to make sure that the patients are actively being treated.

Where is that site; is it dissolved; is it solid form, and what happens; many different parameters and the bottom line is you need to make sure that these products work in these patients. The clinical outcome is critical.

Colin Broom

Biren, without laboring the point any further, there is no dispute that dissolution testing is very useful. We use it all the time in drug development and maybe even more extensive dissolution testing is going to be vital in the assessment of bioequivalence. But I think the point is on it’s own that’s not sufficient, more must be done.

Biren Amin - Stanford Group

Great, thanks for taking my question.

Operator

Our next question is from Gregory Frykman - Stanford Group.

Gregory Frykman - Stanford Group

It also revolves around what Biren was driving at with regard to the advisory committee last week. And that is that at least my take on it was there was little enthusiasm for requiring clinical trials. Again for the general class of locally acting GI drugs. Is that the take or do you have a different take on it?

Colin Broom

I’ll just start and then maybe Bob can comment. First of all, the panel of the advisory board was convened with dissolution experts, the chemical engineers, pharmacists, so already it was a panel convened to talk about dissolution and not about other aspects including clinical trials or any other pharmacokinetic aspects.

The panel discussed what they were able to discuss. So my expectations was that it be a broader discussion. Also we pointed out and what we said was one of our concern is there were no clinicians on that board. Not a single clinician to understand the relevance and the potential impact of disease.

What I would expect and hope for is those considerations would be factored in future deliberation when we get into talking about specific products. Bob do you want to comment on it?

Robert Pietrusko

I think too that as you point out, these particular (inaudible) chemists are looking ways to show bioequivalent rather than doing clinical trials and even when Dr. Dale Gerding presented his information, there were questions on (inaudible) of clinical trials necessary to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the product (inaudible) trials.

Quite frankly that’s the goal of (inaudible) and the group to find mechanisms and when they are relevant that is the path forward. However when the patients who are at risk and there are no clear cut answers, the bioequivalence and dissolution, etcetera the clinical trials are absolutely necessary to protect the public.

Gregory Frykman - Stanford Group

If there were to be the requirements for clinical trials, presumably some non-inferiority trial, do you have a sense of what the acceptable margin of non-inferiority would be, i.e. which simply drives the (inaudible) calculation?

Colin Broom

That would have to be a point of discussion and as you know, there are number of studies ongoing in the drug development division where non inferiority margins have already been defined. But this would have to be discussed with the reviewing division in the Office of Generic Drugs. What we have said in the past the type of study is probably in a few hundred patients.

Robert Pietrusko

Yes, and recent anti-infective advisory committee just recently met and there were numerous questions about the non-inferiority margin and that committee actually requested a tutorial on non-inferiority margins, what might be accepted for an anti-infective. So, clearly there is a lot of question marks around this area needs to be described.

Gregory Frykman - Stanford Group

Fair enough, thanks so much.

Operator

Our next question is from Jason Napodano - Zacks.

Jason Napodano – Zacks

Congratulations on the quarter. Do you have any of the percent of physicians that are still using Metronidazole as the first line therapy?

Daniel Soland

We do not know.

Jason Napodano - Zacks

Okay, would you assume it’s still well above 50%?

Vincent Milano

Jason, maybe the difficulty in answering the question is it is not necessarily the physicians that are using Metronidazole; it’s, are they using Metronidazole on severe patients?

As we discussed a little earlier on the call here, it’s our belief that the combination of having clinical data that substantiates the superiority of Vanco over Metro is being absorbed if you will into the physician practice.

The fact that the new guidelines, although they are not finalized have been distributed through IDSA in terms of their meeting last year, that it appears that more folks are using Vancocin in severe patients.

I am just turning your question around to say it’s not necessarily the number of physicians it’s the number of patients that have severe that are getting Vanco. We think that frankly it’s likely more than it was this time last year frankly.

Jason Napodano - Zacks

Got you. Is the exploratory study that you were doing at Temple University still ongoing?

Colin Broom

Yes, the exploratory study you referred to is to look at the changes that occur in the GI tract in patients with C. difficile disease. So it has never been looked at before and of course it’s something that’s surprising that in vitro test could even be thought of or devised when there is no data upon which to base them on.

So this is an important study that is being done at Temple. The total of 20 patients hit the target. I can tell you that 10 patients, controlled patients, these are patients without CDI, have been studied; the so-called Smart-Core technology that we are using is new although it is approved by the FDA.

That patient core was studied, the data was presented at the recent Gastroenterology meeting, and we continue now to enroll in that and enrolling patients with disease. We have enrolled a number of patients, we have not completed that study; it is still ongoing.

Jason Napodano – Zacks

You think that you will have any data from that study, when you hold the discussions with OGD in the future?

Colin Broom

First of all I am not sure when the discussion with OGD will occur so that’s almost an impossible question for me to answer. In terms of enrolling, we will continue to enroll patients in the study and we hope to have data as soon as possible; we already have some data.

Of course some patients have been looked at but I would like to get more complete information and a more robust data set before commenting further.

Jason Napodano – Zacks

Got you. Thank you.

Vincent Milano

Thank you, Jason. We thank you for staying with us for an extra 20-25 minutes this morning. We appreciate you’ve taken more of your precious time with us. The first half of 2008 as we discussed here this morning is very exciting. We look forward to this momentum continuing for the balance of 2008. Enjoy the rest of your day and thank you very much.

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: ViroPharma Incorporated Q2 2008 Earnings Call Transcript
This Transcript
All Transcripts