The cost recovery aspect of next year's Expanded Access program will be a major plus. But the real benefit will be that it will put Arikace into the hands of the leading pulmonologists.
It was suggested that the single most dangerous infection for physicians treating patients with Non-CF Bronchiectasis is Pseudomonas, as is the case with Cystic Fibrosis. The Phase II data from the Arikace CF program indicate that Arikace is in a different league to any therapy currently used to treat pulmonary pseudomonal infection.
Once again -
"But the bottom line is, when you have an environmental source of a - there's multiple different strains living in that environment. So it makes sense to me that you're often infected with multiple different strains."
"it's very important that we recognise many patients have concurrent infections. And it is, as a clinician, sometimes difficult to tease apart which one today is causing that exacerbation."
I don't think these pulmonologists will wait for hard evidence that a seriously ill patient is carrying an NTM infection before using a drug they are confident will also control the pseudomonal infection.
If Arikace is the breakthrough therapy many of us here believe it to be, the word will spread like wildfire in the medical community.
This is likely to be fundamentally different to what we saw with the use of iPlex in the treatment of ALS. The demand for iPlex in that setting was driven primarily by the patients and their carers. The adoption curve will be on an entirely different scale if the key thought-leaders in the medical community are universally singing the praises of Arikace. The annual $10 million in cost recovery we saw with the iPlex EAP will look like petty cash in comparison.
It's only fair to point out that not everybody here agrees with my argument that the cost-recovery revenue from the Arikace EAP could be many times the revenue Insmed earned from the iPlex EAP.
For those who haven't seen it, here is Satltsasw's explanation of why that won't happen -
"Fud...you know very little about this entire subject. You should learn before you spout off more nonsense.
The drugs manufactured in FOB were already in the marketplace with a proven record. Hence..F-O-B. You know what that means, right? (Unlike your little EAP faux pas) Merck has a sales and marketing force that is top notch and is able to let clinicians know that the drugs were available - they have sales managers talking to every clinician in the world.
Insmed is not Merck."
I should add that I'm not entirely sold on this argument. Why wouldn't Merck do the same with Arikace as it did with iPlex?