Mon, Sep 15, 2014, 9:39 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated Message Board

  • thirdmeinvestor thirdmeinvestor Jan 5, 2010 9:30 PM Flag

    Target shr prices depend on the TVR price

    Some time ago, at a CC, CMO of Vertex estimated that the number of patients who choose to treat would be between 100 to 120 thousands. Because of a pent-up demand the number in the first year of launch could be larger than his estimate. But for arguments sake let us choose a conservative figure, 100,000. Katherine Xu estimated the sales would reach 1.5 billion. This means that the treatment cost/patient she assumed =
    1,500,000,000 dollars divided by 100,000 patients = $15,000.
    This is a very low figure. This is where she erred. I have seen an estimate by an analyst of $75,000 per treatment. $15000 is only one fifth of the figure. Besides, 100,000 patients come from this country alone and do not include patients to be treated in the rest of the world.
    In my earlier estimate I assumed the market share is less than 100% because of Boce. But, in the first year of the launch at least Boce will not be around. To conclude, the target price of 45 is too low. It will be much higher at launch.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • no one believes the 75,000$ figure - total bs

    • <But, in the first year of the launch at least Boce will not be around>

      I would not A$$ume this to be fact at this point in the game!

      Bocep is formidable and it's MRK who owns it from SGP! Tele is superior...agreed... but politics and a WW epidemic HCV of 170M people lead me to believe both will hit the market nearly simultaneously w/ Tele just ahead possibly by months in the US! The FDA is famous for holding up approvals to allow competition on similiars!


      Many on this board see it as zero sum game...I disagree w/ all due respect but than again I am retired from this industry w/ 33 years experience!

      To supply this huge market at a reasonable COT will be a bigger issue than we are considering IMO! Two/three? players and plenty of room for all allows some pricing pressure but still profitable for all!

      Remember that BI 201335 and others have drugs too and they are not that far behind!

      HCV Patients know that they get one shot to CURE by lethal rapid viral overkill and that is why many await the newer treatments today!!

      Just playin devils advocate here but if I was not too sick w/ HCV and knew what was coming I just might enter a trial and go onto a cocktail of 3 of these newer drugs(for free) and take my chances!


      • 3 Replies to frankfrazzano
      • You value Schering and boceprevir. It is understandable since you have worked at the firm. However, you agree that boceprevir is not as potent as telaprevir. Because it is not, just like BI drug (see below) it had to introduce extra measures to match the efficacy of telaprevir; the dosing period had to be lengthened to 44 weeks in comparison with only 8 or 12 wks of dosing period for telaprevir, Sprint trials also contain a 4 wk lead-in administration of peginterferon/rbv to match telaprevir efficacy, and perhaps because of the long period of boce dosing a good portion of patients suffer anemia which had to be treated with erythropoietin(epogen). It is not surprising that the FDA may require a new trial before approving. This last possibility looks real -- they just started a new 2 year trial that compares an arm with epogen against an arm without but at lowered ribavirin dose. Why did Schering have to lower the rbv dose ... why didn't Schering maintain the full dose of rbv? ... anemia must be a serious problem with boce + ifn + rbv combination ... that is why they are lowering rbv dose in the comparator arm. I think that this trial is poorly designed and it won't tell much anything.

        The result reported at the last AASLD shows that the SVR is 75% (this is my computation from their fragmented data) for the 4+44 week arm. I believe that its market potential exists only with much lowered price for it.

        I have also shown that the last BI drug trial was dosed so aggressively that a short lead-in period (3 days) produced a large dropout rate. Read all in the following thread if you really want to know about their trial.

        Good luck with your timing of share purchase.

      • I would think that Tel. would still have a One to Two year head start. Reason being is that Hep C isnt a fast acting get it in your dead within a year disease. Plus their is a treatment allready available. eventhough its toxic and dosnt work on most patient its still a treatment. also the first to market gets the bulk of most of the patients that are all waiting for another teatment.

    • I agree completely that the 12 month target price by this analyst is way too low based on estimates from more credible analysts who have projected much higher pricing for telaprevir, and higher volume of expected sales. There is huge pent up demand for treatment by the 350,000 patients who failued prior SOC treament in the US alone, and are desparate for a chance for SVR, since their time is running out before succumbing to the end stage complications of hepatitis C. Moreover, the competition is at least 2 years behind and due to not to date have a advantage over telaprevir.

92.13-0.86(-0.92%)Sep 15 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
NasdaqGSMon, Sep 15, 2014 4:00 PM EDT
Netflix, Inc.
NasdaqGSMon, Sep 15, 2014 4:00 PM EDT