Tyvaso DPI vs. Yutrepia +
Sept 12, 2023 10:47:16 GMT -5
via mobile
liane, alethea, and 7 more like this
Post by tarheelblue004 on Sept 12, 2023 10:47:16 GMT -5
The future impact of Yutrepia on Tyvaso DPI sales is a common question to Mike and UT. Ultimately it refers to a commercial battle between Liquidia and UT, not Liquidia and MNKD. I personally think the market is big enough for multiple players to do very well and provide options to patients. As MNKD gets a royalty from UT sales, of course UT’s success is the most important to me. But I suspect many own both MNKD / UT and Liquidia to win regardless of the outcome.
One point never made in these conversations is that UT and Liquidia have already been competing for the past 4.5 years! Liquidia, via their RareGen acquisition, is partnered with Novartis’ Sandoz to sell a generic version of UT’s Remodulin (injectable triprostinil). RareGen’s generic was launched in early 2019, and the effort has been led by Roger Jeffs (current Liquidia CEO; previous UT co-CEO and RareGen COO) since inception.
When RareGen’s generic of Remodulin launched in 2019, UT had $600M in annual Remodulin sales. There were a host of other generics about to hit the market soon afterwards. Analysts were bullish on RareGen eating up UT market share. Who is better positioned to take on UT than a former co-CEO? (Does this sound familiar)? (1)
Fast forward four years to the end of FY22. What are the results of Liqudia’s + other generics vs. UT’s Remodulin?
- FY22 Liquidia Generic Revenue: $32M (2)
- FY22 UT Remodulin Revenue: $500M
Four years after launching a competitive injectable treposinil, Liquidia has achieved a whopping 6% of UT’s sales.
Now Liquidia is launching a competitive inhaled treposinil, Yutrepia, against UT’s inhaled drug, Tyvaso DPI. It is again a market that UT is creating - and rapidly I may add. It is again Roger Jeffs at the helm of the challenger. Same Medical Affairs and Sales teams for both firms. Same value propositions: low cost vs. high value. It is still UT vs. Liquidia competing on sales of treposinil: just with a different delivery mechanism.
Some have said that Liquidia’s PRINT technology is better than MannKind’s Technosphere because you can dose higher. UT and MNKD suggest PRINT is actually inferior because it takes more drug to get the same results. Without studies, it is not conclusive.
Which leaves us with the impending commercial battle between Liquidia and UT for inhaled treposinil looking very similar to the existing battle for market share in injectable treposinil. It is a data point, at the very least, as to how Tyvaso DPI vs. Yutrepia will play out. Over time Liquidia should achieve more than 6% of the inhaled treposinil market, but I would not expect them to do much more than let’s say 10 - 15% market share at peak sales. UT has built this market from scratch - and if you doubt the significance of this, just look at Remodulin.
As always I would love your feedback. Are there other ways I did not think of in which Tyvaso DPI vs. Yutrepia will be different than the battle for injectable market share?
(1) www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/sandoz-first-to-reach-u-s-market-generic-to-united-s-500m-pah-drug-remodulin
(2) 50% to Liquida ($16M FY22 revenue), 50% to Sandoz: I got this split from an article by LFD, so take with a heap of salt
One point never made in these conversations is that UT and Liquidia have already been competing for the past 4.5 years! Liquidia, via their RareGen acquisition, is partnered with Novartis’ Sandoz to sell a generic version of UT’s Remodulin (injectable triprostinil). RareGen’s generic was launched in early 2019, and the effort has been led by Roger Jeffs (current Liquidia CEO; previous UT co-CEO and RareGen COO) since inception.
When RareGen’s generic of Remodulin launched in 2019, UT had $600M in annual Remodulin sales. There were a host of other generics about to hit the market soon afterwards. Analysts were bullish on RareGen eating up UT market share. Who is better positioned to take on UT than a former co-CEO? (Does this sound familiar)? (1)
Fast forward four years to the end of FY22. What are the results of Liqudia’s + other generics vs. UT’s Remodulin?
- FY22 Liquidia Generic Revenue: $32M (2)
- FY22 UT Remodulin Revenue: $500M
Four years after launching a competitive injectable treposinil, Liquidia has achieved a whopping 6% of UT’s sales.
Now Liquidia is launching a competitive inhaled treposinil, Yutrepia, against UT’s inhaled drug, Tyvaso DPI. It is again a market that UT is creating - and rapidly I may add. It is again Roger Jeffs at the helm of the challenger. Same Medical Affairs and Sales teams for both firms. Same value propositions: low cost vs. high value. It is still UT vs. Liquidia competing on sales of treposinil: just with a different delivery mechanism.
Some have said that Liquidia’s PRINT technology is better than MannKind’s Technosphere because you can dose higher. UT and MNKD suggest PRINT is actually inferior because it takes more drug to get the same results. Without studies, it is not conclusive.
Which leaves us with the impending commercial battle between Liquidia and UT for inhaled treposinil looking very similar to the existing battle for market share in injectable treposinil. It is a data point, at the very least, as to how Tyvaso DPI vs. Yutrepia will play out. Over time Liquidia should achieve more than 6% of the inhaled treposinil market, but I would not expect them to do much more than let’s say 10 - 15% market share at peak sales. UT has built this market from scratch - and if you doubt the significance of this, just look at Remodulin.
As always I would love your feedback. Are there other ways I did not think of in which Tyvaso DPI vs. Yutrepia will be different than the battle for injectable market share?
(1) www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/sandoz-first-to-reach-u-s-market-generic-to-united-s-500m-pah-drug-remodulin
(2) 50% to Liquida ($16M FY22 revenue), 50% to Sandoz: I got this split from an article by LFD, so take with a heap of salt
