As usual, please PLEASE keep the pumping/bashing and personal stuff out of this one topic. There are SO many other places for them.
Less usually, I have little to say up front. tt was a VERY dense CC and I'll need to look at the statement and the transcript. Small observations: a projected $350MM+ coming year and still growing qualifies Jakafi as a blockbuster in most views. Somebody said something about growing Jakafi inventory: since there is no production of the API, that can only be accounting doodah (price increases; reduced typical dosage).
I'll just scratch the surface of some of the trickier stuff. I may have to learn a lot more about cytokines and growth factors to be able to skim reports and gather the highlights, going forward.
There are three kinds of drug hunts going forward within Incyte. There are the single agent searches we all know and love, there are the "conventional chemo" combinations like capacitabine + ruxo and there are "deep biological" combinations involving multiple pathway-dependent drugs (like the dual immune sensitizer thing with Merck). Basically, there are a sh.tload of combinations being tried in nominally phase 2 studies (some of them are barely beyond phase 1s; some have a hope of leading to label presence or registration) Even one of the JANUS p3s has an early-stage evaluation of a cancer illness scoring questionnaire tacked on. A theme that recurs is that if the other part of the combination causes marrow suppression, the Incyte partner is not Ruxo. Otherwise, since Ruxo can be sold, it is the preferred partner. Some of these have potential to generate off-label Ruxo sales quickly, which is fortunate, because some, like the 2-Incyte-agent (Was it PI3K inhibitor + ruxo? taking it as an example, it doesn't matter) proposed attack on colon cancer, could take a long time and burn lots of money. Experience shows that drug companies do best when moderately cash-constrained, but if Incyte generates 2 drugs a year worthy of registration studies, it could become hard to support them all.
Nobody else yet? I've now read the statement and the transcript and it STILL stretches my poor little head. So I'll start with some lighter stuff.
HH did well. He isn't the expert on much interesting, so he let the experts talk. No Rachel McMinn (or BoA/ML) at all. Quid donat? (What gives?) The money flows last year weren't anything to wake me up. Yeah, you can see that they were getting ahead of preparing for a PV market. The third major EU approval ought to be UK, and it ought to be in the next month (N.I.C.E. can be surprising, but the case is awfully strong--they might imaginably hold out to see if FDA allows survival article references on the label). If they totally punt it, that $60MM milestone may be delayed a couple Qs--Italy's government dithers even more than ours. And by the way, while the survival data for MF is impressive, I think it's less than even money that FDA will allow reference to it on the label. Just the way they are. On its face, the projected R&D expense for the next year has to be taken as a baseline. The 2 JANUSs alone could easily burn $500MM.
Notice that the Bari trials are taking forever. Warning for the development of a JAK1 drug against RA. Speaking of forever, predicted reporting of JANUSs in '16 was a surprise.
Maybe I'd better study some more before getting in deeper.
Rachel McMinn was the only analyst that was a no-show and she is definitely well behind the curve with her last price target being given back in 11/13. A report by her about two weeks ago expressed some negativity on the JAK inflam scene in general based on PFE's Xeljanz having a slow launch in RA. She said that Bari has to show a clear differentiation from Xeljanz in safety in order for the market opportunity not to be marginal relative to development costs. I think Incyte and Lilly believe they have the edge on PFE because Bari does not target JAK3 and Xeljanz is a pan JAK inhibitor --- and the side-effect profile of Bari was better in phase II comparisons.