|
Post by compound26 on Jan 12, 2016 14:22:48 GMT -5
Some comments on potential partners of Mannkind way back in 2006. Based on the fact that Sanofi late actually signed a partnership agreement with Mannkind, these comments may have been built on some concrete sources then (i.e., 2006). www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=22098030William Tanner of Leerink Swann recently told clients that Novo Nordisk "has significantly cut back development activities" on AERx, thus making the company "potentially interested" in MannKind's product called Technosphere Insulin. He says Sanofi-Aventis, as well as Japan's Sankyo or Takeda might be interested in making deal with MannKind, whose Technosphere appears "superior to other inhaled insulin formulations." Tanner has an outperform rating on MannKind.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 12, 2016 14:31:34 GMT -5
"only 35% of the 6000 patients who have ever started on Afrezza are still using it" I never realized it was quite that bad. It's not. It cannot be. This number came from an article that gave no explanation for it's derivation and it's poor journalism. The facts can easily be checked. To date there have been 13,700 NRx (supposedly 'new' prescriptions filled) per Symphony. Most likely this is not new patients as there will have been many rewrites for prescriptions, but the total number of patients starting therapy cannot be known here with any real confidence. Also, from symphony, we calculate refills (TRx - NRx) averaging 260 per week (1,120 per month) over the past 8 weeks. If these represent an average of 60 day supply, you would get a patient population of 2,200 as the article suggested. But, there is a big problem with this.
The ratio of 13,700 actual NRx vs 6,000 patients initiated would mean that NRx is significantly overstated and therefore refills are significantly understated. Adjusting for this, the refills would be running around 435 per week (1,870 per month) or a current patient population of 3,750 for our 60 day average supply used above. This would indicate an actual retention rate of 62%. I don't know what the total current patient population is (only Sanofi and Mannkind have any real knowledge of this), but I would suggest it is closer to 5,000 total and includes a significant number of folks who use Afrezza sporadically. We do see suggestions of this kind of usage in social media.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 12, 2016 14:36:58 GMT -5
"only 35% of the 6000 patients who have ever started on Afrezza are still using it" I never realized it was quite that bad. It's not. It cannot be. This number came from an article that gave no explanation for it's derivation and it's poor journalism. The facts can easily be checked. Rho claims the number came from a Sanofi spokesperson responding to the LA Times. (Presumably Sanofi has the actual numbers whereas in your analysis you are guessing.) Sanofi spokeswoman Susan Brooks "wrote in her email response to the Times that only 35% of the 6000 patients who have ever started on Afrezza are still using it."
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 12, 2016 14:48:02 GMT -5
It's not. It cannot be. This number came from an article that gave no explanation for it's derivation and it's poor journalism. The facts can easily be checked. Rho claims the number came from a Sanofi spokesperson responding to the LA Times. (Presumably Sanofi has the actual numbers whereas in your analysis you are guessing.) Sanofi spokeswoman Susan Brooks "wrote in her email response to the Times that only 35% of the 6000 patients who have ever started on Afrezza are still using it." You need to take more time and understand what I said. I am not guessing. I am doing math from the reported numbers to see if there is any validity here. 35% retention rate of 6,000 patients initiating Afrezza is impossible. Either more patients have initiated, or the retention rate is much higher. If it's true that Sanofi said this, then they were misrepresenting the situation; a notion which should not surprise anyone. I think its equally likely that the author took a statement out of context.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 12, 2016 14:58:15 GMT -5
It's not. It cannot be. This number came from an article that gave no explanation for it's derivation and it's poor journalism. The facts can easily be checked. Rho claims the number came from a Sanofi spokesperson responding to the LA Times. (Presumably Sanofi has the actual numbers whereas in your analysis you are guessing.) Sanofi spokeswoman Susan Brooks "wrote in her email response to the Times that only 35% of the 6000 patients who have ever started on Afrezza are still using it." My suggestion that there are in the neighborhood of 5,000 current patients is indeed a guess. But, it's a guess that should fit better with the current data than the number put out by the LA Times.
|
|
|
Post by parrerob on Jan 12, 2016 15:56:36 GMT -5
I made my calculation in late october (http://mnkd.proboards.com/thread/3839/correlation-refill-new-scripts) and I found exactely a 60% retention.
I based my calculation searching a correlation between new scripts graph and refill graph. I found first that there was a correlation considering 11 weeks different (there was an amazing relation between maximum and minimum comparing New scripts graph (-11 weeks) and Refill graph.
I don't believe in 35%.....
Obviously in my correlation samples were not included,
|
|
|
Post by beardawg on Jan 12, 2016 18:40:32 GMT -5
It's not. It cannot be. This number came from an article that gave no explanation for it's derivation and it's poor journalism. The facts can easily be checked. Rho claims the number came from a Sanofi spokesperson responding to the LA Times. (Presumably Sanofi has the actual numbers whereas in your analysis you are guessing.) Sanofi spokeswoman Susan Brooks "wrote in her email response to the Times that only 35% of the 6000 patients who have ever started on Afrezza are still using it." Sanofi can say that and get away with it because they are including samples. People get free samples but discontinue because it is too expensive or insurance doesn't cover it. That counts against the retention rate. Notice the statement says "who have ever started on Afrezza" They don't give any indication of why people stopped... likely because it would be an indictment of Sanofi's poor job taking care of their part. Taking the information for what it is, you can ONLY draw the conclusion that the retention rate is 35%, which tells you nothing until you dig deeper (is it price?, is it the product?, is it insurance coverage?). She sneakily implied that it was a demand problem by using that number to answer the question. If you raise the price of pizza to $100 I promise you you'd sell a lot less pizza, with a lot less repeat customers.
|
|
|
Post by slugworth008 on Jan 12, 2016 18:52:23 GMT -5
It's not. It cannot be. This number came from an article that gave no explanation for it's derivation and it's poor journalism. The facts can easily be checked. Rho claims the number came from a Sanofi spokesperson responding to the LA Times. (Presumably Sanofi has the actual numbers whereas in your analysis you are guessing.) Sanofi spokeswoman Susan Brooks "wrote in her email response to the Times that only 35% of the 6000 patients who have ever started on Afrezza are still using it." SO says a representative from SNY - the company that never truly marketed Afrezza. Basically verbiage to justify a poor decision and cover tracks for a potential lawsuit - IMO
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Jan 12, 2016 19:02:28 GMT -5
Obviously I don't know if the 35% number Rho quoted and Sanofi gave out is accurate or not. I think it is notable that Rho did not question it.
It's also higher than what I've heard some shorts proclaim it was (though it is clearly lower than what those on the long side believe). The fact that it splits the difference makes me think it is not an outlandish number.
Regarding the reporting of the LA Times, this is the same newspaper that has regularly treated Al Mann as a local hero for the last few years and has given considerable positive press to Al, Mannkind, and Afrezza. I don't believe it suddenly turned on a dime so as to now start indiscriminately reporting made up negative and / or negatively slanted numbers. YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdmorelong on Jan 12, 2016 19:33:22 GMT -5
Obviously I don't know if the 35% number Rho quoted and Sanofi gave out is accurate or not. I think it is notable that Rho did not question it. It's also higher than what I've heard some shorts proclaim it was (though it is clearly lower than what those on the long side believe). The fact that it splits the difference makes me think it is not an outlandish number. Regarding the reporting of the LA Times, this is the same newspaper that has regularly treated Al Mann as a local hero for the last few years and has given considerable positive press to Al, Mannkind, and Afrezza. I don't believe it suddenly turned on a dime so as to now start indiscriminately reporting made up negative and / or negatively slanted numbers. YMMV. There are quite a few posters who challenge the 35% number. Does it really matter? More people attend a Toledo Mud Hen's game than use Afrezza. A bigger question is how come there were only 6,000 people in the US willing to try Afrezza? Label or no label, a doc can tell the patient that Afrezza is fast acting and fast leaving. You would think that those diabetics with frequent hypos would be willing to give it a go.
|
|
|
Post by beardawg on Jan 12, 2016 19:56:28 GMT -5
Obviously I don't know if the 35% number Rho quoted and Sanofi gave out is accurate or not. I think it is notable that Rho did not question it. It's also higher than what I've heard some shorts proclaim it was (though it is clearly lower than what those on the long side believe). The fact that it splits the difference makes me think it is not an outlandish number. Regarding the reporting of the LA Times, this is the same newspaper that has regularly treated Al Mann as a local hero for the last few years and has given considerable positive press to Al, Mannkind, and Afrezza. I don't believe it suddenly turned on a dime so as to now start indiscriminately reporting made up negative and / or negatively slanted numbers. YMMV. You're dodging the issue. The point is the number means nothing. That number could mean that the other 65% died immediately after taking it and therefore couldn't take it anymore. Or that the other 65% all moved to Russia and it wasn't available to them anymore. The point is we don't know the reason. (Well, we do, but it's not what she's implying) I could do like she did and answer this question with the same response she made: "Did anyone get cured of diabetes while taking Afrezza?" I'd be just as dishonest, and we'd both be telling the truth.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jan 12, 2016 20:05:49 GMT -5
Rho's gone off the deep end. Talking about "forces colluding to harm mnkd" and that there is a cabal to be arrested. Weird really.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdmorelong on Jan 12, 2016 20:24:41 GMT -5
Rho's gone off the deep end. Talking about "forces colluding to harm mnkd" and that there is a cabal to be arrested. Weird really. I didn't read that.
|
|
|
Post by greg on Jan 12, 2016 20:27:55 GMT -5
Rho's gone off the deep end. Talking about "forces colluding to harm mnkd" and that there is a cabal to be arrested. Weird really. Hardly weird. I agree wholeheartedly with his sentiments. They should all be put away. Good riddance to bad rubbish as they say.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jan 12, 2016 20:37:40 GMT -5
Rho's gone off the deep end. Talking about "forces colluding to harm mnkd" and that there is a cabal to be arrested. Weird really. I didn't read that. In his responses to comments.
|
|