|
|
Post by jpg on Jan 13, 2015 9:07:34 GMT -5
JP Morgan is analyzing Sanofi and not MNKD or Afrezza specifically. How much time do you think they really spent looking into Afrezza? And if they spent more time then I give them credit for (which is very little time) do you think they have the urge to go out on a limb and drift from established consensus with Afrezza sales target? No upside for them in this type of analysis. Same deal 20 or so years ago with Lipitor and 10-15 years ago with Gleevec. Novartis almost canned Gleevec at last 3 or 4 times.
JPG
|
|
|
|
Post by daduke38 on Jan 13, 2015 14:43:14 GMT -5
Odd that they list Afrezza under Pharma Pipeline Phase III. It makes me think they are viewing Afrezza solely as a prandial to be used in combination with Toujeo. They are limiting Afrezza's target population, which I see as an error in their assessment. If you go back to the remarks made by SNY at the announcement of the Partnership what you are saying is not out of the realm. But they are launching it before Toujeo is even approved. It has crossed my mind that SNY is under estimating the need and benefit of "A". We should know soon. I also have to say I wish I knew what they consider a controlled launch. If sales are low because it's too controlled, you know shorts will be all over "Lack of Sales". Just wish I had a warmer and fuzzier feeling as to how SNY is going to market "A". |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 13, 2015 15:23:51 GMT -5
Odd that they list Afrezza under Pharma Pipeline Phase III. It makes me think they are viewing Afrezza solely as a prandial to be used in combination with Toujeo. They are limiting Afrezza's target population, which I see as an error in their assessment. If you go back to the remarks made by SNY at the announcement of the Partnership what you are saying is not out of the realm. But they are launching it before Toujeo is even approved. It has crossed my mind that SNY is under estimating the need and benefit of "A". We should know soon. I also have to say I wish I knew what they consider a controlled launch. If sales are low because it's too controlled, you know shorts will be all over "Lack of Sales". Just wish I had a warmer and fuzzier feeling as to how SNY is going to market "A". Based on the slides from Sanofi it would appear that is not their strategy. I'd refer you back to mnkd.proboards.com/thread/1481/sanofi-slides-87-88-89 if you'd like to see the relevant slides. Of the 3.1 million "initial target market" for Afrezza Sanofi shows 2.0 million as insulin naive and 1.1 million as patients already on basal. They've never indicated that they view concurrent initiation of basal and Afrezza as the strategy for those 2.0 million. |
|
|
|
Post by daduke38 on Jan 13, 2015 15:34:31 GMT -5
If you go back to the remarks made by SNY at the announcement of the Partnership what you are saying is not out of the realm. But they are launching it before Toujeo is even approved. It has crossed my mind that SNY is under estimating the need and benefit of "A". We should know soon. I also have to say I wish I knew what they consider a controlled launch. If sales are low because it's too controlled, you know shorts will be all over "Lack of Sales". Just wish I had a warmer and fuzzier feeling as to how SNY is going to market "A". Based on the slides from Sanofi it would appear that is not their strategy. I'd refer you back to mnkd.proboards.com/thread/1481/sanofi-slides-87-88-89 if you'd like to see the relevant slides. Of the 3.1 million "initial target market" for Afrezza Sanofi shows 2.0 million as insulin naive and 1.1 million as patients already on basal. They've never indicated that they view concurrent initiation of basal and Afrezza as the strategy for those 2.0 million. Thank you! The 3rd slide was especially reassuring. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamboatcruise on Jan 13, 2015 15:46:28 GMT -5
It is slide 94 (the final slide of the 8 initially posted) that has always been a source of a bit of concern for me. It lists a two phase launch. The point of concern is that one might read the slide as saying that they believe finishing the "safety study" is necessary for the second stage... and the safety study mentioned in earlier slide is the 5 year long term one. Hopefully they will take advantage of many of the other things listed as the second stage well before this long term study is complete. I'm hopeful that the messaging of this slide was simply not well thought out... with their strategy not really consisting of two distinct phases, but rather an initial roll out and then many "expansion drivers" coming on line sequentially to propel sales.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 16:56:55 GMT -5
DBC:
Couldn't one argue that phase 2 is waiting for the label improvement studies that SNY has been hinting towards? And not the long term safety study?
|
|
