Few issues. Zerenex has some of the same issues inherent in the current IV iron therapies, such as overburdening patients with too much iron. Further, trial demographic, and more importantly, trial design were completely different because Zerenex is not being assessed for it's iron therapy ability by the FDA.
IV iron was permitted, which confounds the hell out of iron data in the Zerenex trial, and even with it's permitted use the Hgb improvement vs placebo over the duration of the trial was comparable to SFP which had no supplemental IV iron use.
Zerenex is a revolutionary drug though, I won't take anything away from their remarkable drug, but SFP is not in competition with it... They are entirely different markets.
Good luck to you, and congrats for today. I am long KERX and had some money in RMTI as well. I missed the big bump today, because I had some money tied up that I was hoping would be available last week, but its still tied up in the TSRX tender. I was going to split it between AMRN and RMTI, but now I may not put it in RMTI anymore since I missed the big bump. I like SFP, but oral Zerenex will still lower phosphates as well as the currently available phosphate binders, but will, no matter if the trials weren't set up to do this or not, increase iron stores. It also doesn't have a lot of the major side effects of IV iron (also avoided by SFP as well). It will decrease the need for SFP. I think SFP is a great drug and there will be a market for it. But I think Zerenex will undoubtedly take away some of the market share from RMTI in the long run, whether it is intended to or not (I don't think it will be intended). They will both take market share from Amgen though, so Amgen may not be too happy about that, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. There is a place in the world for both RMTI and KERX, and I think they both will be profitable, but long term I do think that KERX will be more profitable. Like I said, good luck and I hope both companies are winners.
I understand your points. The reality of the situation is that when" bundling", the end result and lowest cost is what matters. If the iron and Hgb are increased, the EPO needed is decreased and phosphate binding is accomplished with one drug, there is no need for other agents. It's all a matter of less is better, in both the number of agents used and the cost. Increasing iron, Hgb and phosphate binding can be accomplished with many agents...or just one...Zerenex. Bam!