|
|
Post by notamnkdmillionaire on Aug 7, 2015 13:18:33 GMT -5
The latest issue of Forbes has a graph of the best selling drugs of all time. Point to be made is that it took most of them a few years to gain traction and that. typically, no drug is a winner out of the gate. The one exception is Sovaldi which has created tremendous revenues its first year in the market. But, expect that to quickly drop due to the disease it treats. www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/07/29/the-top-drug-launches-of-all-time/ |
|
|
|
Post by _neil on Aug 7, 2015 13:26:16 GMT -5
I don't think Afrezza fits well into this graph. The scale is a bit hard to accurately get to but all of these drugs seem to have done at least ~10s of millions in their first year? If so, it doesn't really bode well.
|
|
|
|
Post by patryn on Aug 7, 2015 13:27:00 GMT -5
I would certainly take slow and steady year over year growth (until the patent cliff), over fast out the gate, and then steep drop off. In my business, the biggest obstacle to overcome for customer success is aligning expectations. Investors in MNKD may need to wait 2-5 years to see the billion dollar drug sales that would justify the 10+ billion dollar market caps that we are hoping for. Knowing that MNKD and SNY management has this strategy in mind and has the cashflow and perseverance to stick with the plan will be the key to holding (and adding to my holdings) of MNKD over the next several years.
|
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Aug 7, 2015 13:30:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by _neil on Aug 7, 2015 13:30:30 GMT -5
patryn.. I agree. I've pushing out the 1B sales target year further and further each passing day. You've also identified the factors where MNKD is weak. Cashflow is in short supply and so will perseverance once Al steps down.  |
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Aug 7, 2015 13:55:27 GMT -5
However, note that Sovaldi's patient population is much smaller and that Solvadi is a cure for 98% of those treated, whereas Afrezza will generate a lifetime of reoccurring revenue from each prescription, assuming high renewal rates among users, which seems to be the case. |
|
|
|
Post by notamnkdmillionaire on Aug 7, 2015 13:58:46 GMT -5
However, note that Sovaldi's patient population is smaller and that Silvadi is a cure for 98% of those treated, whereas Afrezza will generate a lifetime of reoccurring revenue from each prescription, assuming high renewal rates among users which seems to be the case. And that was the point I was trying to make about Sovaldi's curve being short lived without going into why which you so eloquently did. |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Aug 7, 2015 18:33:54 GMT -5
Notice how some of these drugs have continued to grow? I think Lantus has seen steady growth throughout nearly all of its patent life. Afrezza could be the same in that respect.
|
|
|
|
Post by monger on Aug 7, 2015 19:44:57 GMT -5
However, note that Sovaldi's patient population is smaller and that Silvadi is a cure for 98% of those treated, whereas Afrezza will generate a lifetime of reoccurring revenue from each prescription, assuming high renewal rates among users which seems to be the case. And that was the point I was trying to make about Sovaldi's curve being short lived without going into why which you so eloquently did. I own shares of GILD, which makes Sovaldi, so I've been part of this discussion for some time. While you're correct that it's an outright cure rather than a treatment and therefore it's worth considering how long that curve is going to last, it's so expensive that they're become the poster child for high medical costs, despite the cost to bring a drug to market, etc. So there is the risk of serious political repercussions (you can Google what Bernie Sanders wants to do, have the "VA" pull their patent!) with Sovaldi that we don't have with Afrezza, and certainly the competitors to Sovaldi are fighting hard to knock them off their tier, etc. But in terms of curing versus treating and the curve, you have to consider that there is quite a large Hep C population, and more people are getting infected daily. So sure, at some point, theoretically, there won't be a need for Sovaldi but I think the curve is going to be pretty high and extend longer than a lot of people think as the world wide population of Hep C patients grows. I have no idea what the curve will look like, but probably a pretty large hump followed by a long declining tail that goes on for many years. I think the high part of the curve probably hasn't been reached yet, and it will continue to grow for a few more years. Of course all this is speculation, but I'm just saying that while Sovaldi and Afrezza are very different, I wouldn't count on the Sovaldi super-steep line/curve to collapse soon. Obviously the straight line up can't continue much longer, but there will be a lot of area under the curve for many years. |
|
|
|
Post by mannmade on Aug 7, 2015 19:53:58 GMT -5
I also own Gild since 38pps before the split and follow it closely. I think although share price is high it is still a good stock to buy when u can (my personal opinion and am not encouraging anyone to do so) . Gild is still relatively under valued based on its P/E and unlike Sanofi et al only had 6,000 ees worldwide compared to some 30,000 plus for others. They have found a cure for Hep C virus with minimal side effects and are working on others including for HIV. Just my personal opinion that they are a good long term play.
|
|
|
|
Post by notamnkdmillionaire on Aug 7, 2015 20:22:14 GMT -5
And that was the point I was trying to make about Sovaldi's curve being short lived without going into why which you so eloquently did. I own shares of GILD, which makes Sovaldi, so I've been part of this discussion for some time. While you're correct that it's an outright cure rather than a treatment and therefore it's worth considering how long that curve is going to last, it's so expensive that they're become the poster child for high medical costs, despite the cost to bring a drug to market, etc. So there is the risk of serious political repercussions (you can Google what Bernie Sanders wants to do, have the "VA" pull their patent!) with Sovaldi that we don't have with Afrezza, and certainly the competitors to Sovaldi are fighting hard to knock them off their tier, etc. But in terms of curing versus treating and the curve, you have to consider that there is quite a large Hep C population, and more people are getting infected daily. So sure, at some point, theoretically, there won't be a need for Sovaldi but I think the curve is going to be pretty high and extend longer than a lot of people think as the world wide population of Hep C patients grows. I have no idea what the curve will look like, but probably a pretty large hump followed by a long declining tail that goes on for many years. I think the high part of the curve probably hasn't been reached yet, and it will continue to grow for a few more years. Of course all this is speculation, but I'm just saying that while Sovaldi and Afrezza are very different, I wouldn't count on the Sovaldi super-steep line/curve to collapse soon. Obviously the straight line up can't continue much longer, but there will be a lot of area under the curve for many years. All good points. My calculation is that the infection rate is a lot smaller than the already known base of those who know they have infection. Thus, the initial rush to dose those infected was high which the numbers reflect. time will tell but I think that curve is going to trend down and plateau. The drug will still be successful and make the company money but the other treatments will eat into it, imo. |
|
