RE:RE:RE:RE:SalesWhile I don't wish to rain on the parade with the nice sales number, Spatrap is correct. We should be looking at this over the year, not the quarter, to eliminate the volatility caused by F1 to F4. So it was a year with revenues up 4% -- nice, but really all that represents is the usual 4-5% price increase they tack on. Plus, we had some higher net revenue Trog sales in there since they hit the earnout numbers. Look - still impressive to be flat over a crazy year, but if you look at the price vs. vol effect on their revenues, we will probably see not a huge jump in actual number of net patients on the drugs and a slightly higher net price. I'll take it, but it shows patient usage resiliancy as opposed to fantastic patient recruitment and increased doctor usage.
The R&D news is fantastic and much of what we all wanted to hear. Oncology is being pushed as a bigger trial and they're already taking on some of the optionality in new indicationsI had thought would only happen later. This could be blockbuster after P1. And NASH clearly in Phase 3 at least gets them up there with only a handful of companies in the world. It wouldnt' surprise me that some of the HIV vs. non-HIV endpoints could be a negotiating point as we know the issues there. Also doing a much longer trial may need some fine-tuning as the FDA hasn't had too many like that. I'm purely guessing, but whatever the issues I can't imagine they are significant and should be easily worked out amongst the team. So THTX does have a super group on their advisory and a very good reputation with FDA on how to move things forward.
Now we need to start seeing analysts and other investors take this all as seriously as we do and figure out the valuation parameters as we all have. Like SPCEO says, if more eyes look at this some will see how cheap it is versus any reasonable comps out there if you are willing to "look" out 3-4 years. I think some will.
scarlet1967 wrote: Or maybe patients stay longer on F4 due to ease of use.
CEO mentioned few times patients avoid clinics due to pandemic, Trogarzo has good compliance but it has to be infused at clinics so my take is the growth could be from increased sales of the Egrifta.
Spartrap wrote: Well if you remember, management guided that Egrifta sales last quarter were meaningfully impacted by the fact that pharmacists returned their stock of the old formulation en masse (so those had to be reimbursed). They also guided that they expected pharmacists to *stock* the new formulation during 4th quarter with the opposite effect. I don't like to be the cynical guy, but just that could conceivably account for most of the improvements..
qwerty22 wrote: So Egrifta sales have suffered since the switch to F4/pandemic. This Q's number could largely be accounted for if sales of that drug have recovered to historical norms with some small growth in Trogarzo. Yep the breakdown matters.
jeffm34 wrote: Sales last quarter were 14.0M. This quarter improved by 35%. That's huge! Will be interesting to see the breakdown of sales.