|
Post by mnholdem on Apr 9, 2019 15:27:11 GMT -5
Here's the truth... And the CEO of UTHR has stated that if TreT is approved they will move ~100% of patients to that platform. I don't know why you say here's the truth as though anything I said was factually incorrect. It may be UTHR's plan to switch 100% of Tyvaso to TreT, but that doesn't always translate over. Expecting TreT to furiously outperform Tyvaso is probably a bad assumption. My exact words were "Right now, we should expect TreT to replace Tyvaso's sales, assuming UTHR pushes hard and educates doctors. Whether it will extend far beyond that is unknown. " I'm not sure how your post made that statement incorrect. Envision a scenario where a doctor prescribes Tyvaso but finds out it's discontinued. If a UTHR rep hasn't made their rounds to that doctor's office, they're not going to switch to TreT, they'll switch it to something else. That was the point of my post. UTHR is going to have to market TreT as a though it is a new drug. I won't comment too far outside of the lines but will posit this one question- if the market size is about the same, is UTHR going to aggressively market TreT to make the same amount of money (actually less since MNKD gets their cut too) they otherwise would have already? For all intents and purposes, TreT is superior to Tyvaso. But will it be indicated for more patients? Will they do another expensive superiority trial where they compare it against other medications or just let ease of use be the main driver for prescriptions? Unless I'm missing something, the studies they're doing are comparing TreT to Tyvaso as well as completing a safety trial, not comparing it to other drugs in its class. UTHR must have seen enough potential to recoup all of these costs and more, otherwise they probably wouldn't have inked the deal. I won't sit here and play armchair quarterback. Certainly UTHR has done their homework and knows how this all plays out. Just color me a little skeptical about this blowing Tyvaso out of the water for the reasons I stated above. A lot of this is riding on how aggressively UTHR markets TreT and how much they're willing to spend to ensure its success. This is one of the reasons why United should consider branding the product Tyvaso-TS. Name recognition is huge in the Pharma industry.
|
|
|
Post by awesomo on Apr 9, 2019 15:30:16 GMT -5
Maybe we should just invest in UTHR instead.
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Apr 9, 2019 15:31:16 GMT -5
I intend to. Yessiree.
|
|
|
Post by mango on Apr 9, 2019 21:17:50 GMT -5
Alvaso
|
|
|
Post by kc on Apr 11, 2019 17:22:46 GMT -5
I don't know why you say here's the truth as though anything I said was factually incorrect. It may be UTHR's plan to switch 100% of Tyvaso to TreT, but that doesn't always translate over. Expecting TreT to furiously outperform Tyvaso is probably a bad assumption. My exact words were "Right now, we should expect TreT to replace Tyvaso's sales, assuming UTHR pushes hard and educates doctors. Whether it will extend far beyond that is unknown. " I'm not sure how your post made that statement incorrect. Envision a scenario where a doctor prescribes Tyvaso but finds out it's discontinued. If a UTHR rep hasn't made their rounds to that doctor's office, they're not going to switch to TreT, they'll switch it to something else. That was the point of my post. UTHR is going to have to market TreT as a though it is a new drug. I won't comment too far outside of the lines but will posit this one question- if the market size is about the same, is UTHR going to aggressively market TreT to make the same amount of money (actually less since MNKD gets their cut too) they otherwise would have already? For all intents and purposes, TreT is superior to Tyvaso. But will it be indicated for more patients? Will they do another expensive superiority trial where they compare it against other medications or just let ease of use be the main driver for prescriptions? Unless I'm missing something, the studies they're doing are comparing TreT to Tyvaso as well as completing a safety trial, not comparing it to other drugs in its class. UTHR must have seen enough potential to recoup all of these costs and more, otherwise they probably wouldn't have inked the deal. I won't sit here and play armchair quarterback. Certainly UTHR has done their homework and knows how this all plays out. Just color me a little skeptical about this blowing Tyvaso out of the water for the reasons I stated above. A lot of this is riding on how aggressively UTHR markets TreT and how much they're willing to spend to ensure its success. Treprostinil Technosphere is the next generation of inhaled treprostinil therapy, and it will replace Tyvaso 100%. Martine Rothblatt has made it perfectly clear, numerous times—MannKind's inhalation devices are revolutionary, and their TreT drug/device combo will be a life-changer compared to Tyvaso. TreT is 100% superior to Tyvaso and will be 100% replacing it. Currently, that's WHO group 1, but potentially WHO group 3 (PH-COPD & PH-ILD) —and possibly more, will have to wait and see. No approved therapies for WHO group 3 currently. Tyvaso would be the first if the trials succeed. I cannot make sense of your hypothetical scenario. What is the physician gonna prescribe instead of TreT in that picture? Are they just gonna literally discontinue their inhaled treprostinil therapy entirely? That would be ridiculous. What if they use Tyvaso in combo with other med(s)? Just abruptly stop inhaled treprostinil therapy and select something else? Would they even continue using treprostinil at all? Pump? Injection? I can't see that unless it were clinically indicated. I really believe your scenario is FUD. Rothblatt is no flake, and we ain't goin to Hell in a bucket. I agree with Mango
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Apr 11, 2019 17:32:06 GMT -5
What price target have analysts set for UTHR? 9 analysts have issued 12 month price targets for United Therapeutics' stock. Their forecasts range from $95.00 to $269.00. On average, they anticipate United Therapeutics' share price to reach $133.8750 in the next twelve months. This suggests a possible upside of 21.8% from the stock's current price. View Analyst Price Targets for United Therapeutics. www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/UTHR/
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Apr 11, 2019 18:06:14 GMT -5
Here's the truth... And the CEO of UTHR has stated that if TreT is approved they will move ~100% of patients to that platform. I don't know why you say here's the truth as though anything I said was factually incorrect. It may be UTHR's plan to switch 100% of Tyvaso to TreT, but that doesn't always translate over. Expecting TreT to furiously outperform Tyvaso is probably a bad assumption. My exact words were "Right now, we should expect TreT to replace Tyvaso's sales, assuming UTHR pushes hard and educates doctors. Whether it will extend far beyond that is unknown. " I'm not sure how your post made that statement incorrect. Envision a scenario where a doctor prescribes Tyvaso but finds out it's discontinued. If a UTHR rep hasn't made their rounds to that doctor's office, they're not going to switch to TreT, they'll switch it to something else. That was the point of my post. UTHR is going to have to market TreT as a though it is a new drug. I won't comment too far outside of the lines but will posit this one question- if the market size is about the same, is UTHR going to aggressively market TreT to make the same amount of money (actually less since MNKD gets their cut too) they otherwise would have already? For all intents and purposes, TreT is superior to Tyvaso. But will it be indicated for more patients? Will they do another expensive superiority trial where they compare it against other medications or just let ease of use be the main driver for prescriptions? Unless I'm missing something, the studies they're doing are comparing TreT to Tyvaso as well as completing a safety trial, not comparing it to other drugs in its class. UTHR must have seen enough potential to recoup all of these costs and more, otherwise they probably wouldn't have inked the deal. I won't sit here and play armchair quarterback. Certainly UTHR has done their homework and knows how this all plays out. Just color me a little skeptical about this blowing Tyvaso out of the water for the reasons I stated above. A lot of this is riding on how aggressively UTHR markets TreT and how much they're willing to spend to ensure its success. quote: Envision a scenario where a doctor prescribes Tyvaso but finds out it's discontinued. If a UTHR rep hasn't made their rounds to that doctor's office, they're not going to switch to TreT, they'll switch it to something else. Reply: A pulmonary hypertension specialist is a physician who has been specially trained in PH by a pulmonary hypertension specialist at a pulmonary hypertension center. Most PH specialists are pulmonologists or cardiologists.IT IS THEIR JOB/Job Description TO KNOW. Specialist groups should have some in the group looking at the new drugs.
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Apr 11, 2019 18:18:37 GMT -5
AAFP usually has good resources that (I think) is at least understandable by most educated laypeople. Here's an article on the complexity of the disease and different treatment options www.aafp.org/afp/2016/0915/p463.htmlOnly so many treatment options. PULMONARY ARTERIAL HYPERTENSION Drug development has focused on the treatment of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Studies are limited by short follow-up periods and a lack of patient-centered outcomes.1,22 Patients should have a right heart catheterization and subspecialty referral before initiation of vasodilator or other targeted therapies.1–3 Patients without symptoms or evidence of functional impairment (using a six-minute walk test) should generally be monitored without therapy.1 After symptoms develop, patients with acute vasoreactivity on right heart catheterization should begin a trial of calcium channel blockers.1 Patients with a mean pulmonary arterial pressure decrease of more than 10 mm Hg to less than 40 mm Hg and with an unchanged or increased cardiac output when challenged are considered vasoreactive.3 Other treatments may include an endothelin receptor antagonist (bosentan [Tracleer]), a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (sildenafil [Revatio]), or a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator (riociguat [Adempas]).1 Further treatment may include parenteral or inhaled prostanoids, such as epoprostenol (Flolan, Veletri), and newer oral prostacyclin agents, such as selexipag (Uptravi) and treprostinil (Orenitram).
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Apr 11, 2019 20:57:04 GMT -5
I don't know why you say here's the truth as though anything I said was factually incorrect. It may be UTHR's plan to switch 100% of Tyvaso to TreT, but that doesn't always translate over. Expecting TreT to furiously outperform Tyvaso is probably a bad assumption. My exact words were "Right now, we should expect TreT to replace Tyvaso's sales, assuming UTHR pushes hard and educates doctors. Whether it will extend far beyond that is unknown. " I'm not sure how your post made that statement incorrect. Envision a scenario where a doctor prescribes Tyvaso but finds out it's discontinued. If a UTHR rep hasn't made their rounds to that doctor's office, they're not going to switch to TreT, they'll switch it to something else. That was the point of my post. UTHR is going to have to market TreT as a though it is a new drug. I won't comment too far outside of the lines but will posit this one question- if the market size is about the same, is UTHR going to aggressively market TreT to make the same amount of money (actually less since MNKD gets their cut too) they otherwise would have already? For all intents and purposes, TreT is superior to Tyvaso. But will it be indicated for more patients? Will they do another expensive superiority trial where they compare it against other medications or just let ease of use be the main driver for prescriptions? Unless I'm missing something, the studies they're doing are comparing TreT to Tyvaso as well as completing a safety trial, not comparing it to other drugs in its class. UTHR must have seen enough potential to recoup all of these costs and more, otherwise they probably wouldn't have inked the deal. I won't sit here and play armchair quarterback. Certainly UTHR has done their homework and knows how this all plays out. Just color me a little skeptical about this blowing Tyvaso out of the water for the reasons I stated above. A lot of this is riding on how aggressively UTHR markets TreT and how much they're willing to spend to ensure its success. quote: Envision a scenario where a doctor prescribes Tyvaso but finds out it's discontinued. If a UTHR rep hasn't made their rounds to that doctor's office, they're not going to switch to TreT, they'll switch it to something else. Reply: A pulmonary hypertension specialist is a physician who has been specially trained in PH by a pulmonary hypertension specialist at a pulmonary hypertension center. Most PH specialists are pulmonologists or cardiologists.IT IS THEIR JOB/Job Description TO KNOW. Specialist groups should have some in the group looking at the new drugs. We saw how badly that marketing strategy worked with Afrezza. Why repeat it with Treat? The manufacturer should promote and market their drugs, not rely on a doctor to do research to find it. Doctors have incredible time demands, which is why it's so hard for reps to get in front of them in the first place. I'm not saying UTHR won't do the job, just that they're going to have to spend more money to potentially capture the same market share. I'm curious to see how that goes and how committed they are to it.
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Apr 12, 2019 1:05:44 GMT -5
If the enthusiasm with which TreT is being prosecuted is any indication, marketing TreT is not a concern IMHO. I agree, “Rothblatt is no flake”, and doesn’t seem to be the kind to make a rookie mistake, or be lacking the resources to execute on a full plan.
|
|
|
Post by mymann on Apr 12, 2019 10:07:06 GMT -5
It's time to put Afrezza on the back burner and get on board with UTHR. Plug the drainage of our cash. Afrezza is most important development in diabetic care but too many big drug companies are against MNKD.
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Apr 12, 2019 12:14:37 GMT -5
It's time to put Afrezza on the back burner and get on board with UTHR. Plug the drainage of our cash. Afrezza is most important development in diabetic care but too many big drug companies are against MNKD. Mike has already made clear that meeting the UTHR milestones is a top priority. That is one thing I'd certainly take at face value, and not everything from management I do. The company is on board. Whether to drop Afrezza to save cash seems different issue.
|
|
|
Post by boca1girl on Apr 12, 2019 12:16:51 GMT -5
How come most of these new posters are pushing selling or just dropping Afrezza all together? Does that seem odd to any of the long term holders?
We have posters who have been around for a long time and are consistently pessimistic. But now we have many new posters piling on.
|
|
|
Post by letitride on Apr 12, 2019 13:56:28 GMT -5
How come most of these new posters are pushing selling or just dropping Afrezza all together? Does that seem odd to any of the long term holders? We have posters who have been around for a long time and are consistently pessimistic. But now we have many new posters piling on. Its not strange, it means their days are numbered not ours.
|
|
|
Post by mytakeonit on Apr 12, 2019 14:03:48 GMT -5
Obviously the shorts are starting to feel the pressure that time to get out was yesterday ... and today low volume makes it very difficult to do so. Now down about 16 cents on 2.5M shares. Probably sports boat is getting very full ... but, I have enough shares and can wait for a lower price ... or not.
But, that's mytakeonit
|
|