A Few CommentsWow, go away for a few days leaves one with a lot of reading to do.
I noticed a lot of chat about PCSK9 therapies and it made me think what a good position RVX is in wrt market differentiation. PCSK9 therapies targeting the high LDL market, CETP inhibitors trying to raise HDL in general and RVX targeting the low HDL diabetic population and producing amazing, meaningful RRR of MACE in this group thus far. When one considers that the global diabetic population is 382 million people of which half (according to a study I saw on the American Diabetes Assn website) are low HDL, that is a huge potential market. Given that currently roughly 80% of diabetics die from CVD there is a large "in need" patient population. A little basic math says that for every 1% market share capture of global target market, an RVX-208/rosuvastatin combo would generate about $3.8B revenue/yr. This is based on a $2000/yr drug which is the number management gave me when I asked. (382m diabetic patients/2 x .01 x $2000). The opportunity is obviously huge as only a few pecent market share capture would generate huge revenue and leave a large underserved market to further capture.
Further to this, with the positives in the science and the now greatly reduced time and cost to drug registration in the diabetic space, I think RVX is in a place where pharma must be really taking notice from both a potential and risk perspective. I believe DonM when he says that pharma is telling RVX what they want to see in ph3. I recently read that AZ is going to see Crestor revenues fall by about $3B once it is fully off patent. I can't beieve that they are not at least considering an RVX-208/crestor combo as a potential way to gain both lengthened patent protection and increased market share. I can't imagine that Pascal Soriot would keep his job at AZ if an RVX-208/rosuvastatin combo was brought to market by a competitor as it would likely seriously further impair Crestor revenues if not take them to almost zero.
Given that CETP inhibitors are big pharma, I think the aformentioned diffentiation of RVX-208 is somewhat protective for RVX but I think that the company still needs to find a way to more effectively communicate the RVX story to a much larger share ofthe investing public. It is a great story. All in all I think if one has a medium to longer term outlook RVX is a good place to be. JMO
Yes Torpedoman, I'm a Calgary guy. Quite enjoyed your questions to DonM at the last AGM. It might be good to chat at some point.