Only about $10M ( and that is next Q).
But that's a start. Should be at $40M/Q or so by EOY. Add that to cash in hand of about $200M and things are OK by me.
So, how is it possible for a type 1 to have no more needles?
The EU has both 2-DAA and 3-DAA approved. The 2-DAA is for genotype 4. But fir type 1, it will still be the 3-DAA product.
The FDA label is only 3-DAA because genotype 4 is rare here.
It was "over $3B", but to be safe $3B seams reasonable. So $150M (to ENTA) there. That does not include Japan though, which is a decent market (with higher roalties). Perhaps another $30M.
So $180M is very reasonable for '16. Not bad.
That trial finished recruiting by Dec 22 (Dec 8 at the earliest). The trial runs 4 weeks. So give them 2 weeks of slop and a few weeks to scrub and unblind. Looks like March is a good bet, maybe late Feb at the best.
Chirotic: Oct '15
Chirotic with portal hypertension: Jul '15
Damit, why do you have to spoil my hopes :-)
I am puzzled why a buying consortium would act individually, but it is the government so who knows.
It would not at all suprise me to find out that a substantial portion of the short was now a hedge against to be tendered shares.
E.G., own 1000s long at $47. Plan to tender for $50, but expect to only get 75% accepted. Therefor one could short 250s against the tendered box to lock in a profit of $3X750. Once the tendor is gone the 250 short is covered by the unaccepted long shares,
Illegal, but I doubt the SEC would bother wth it.
And some quick napkin numbers would make this about a $300M/y deal. This is the 3rd large deal, with a hell of a lot of the pool still unclaimed.
Not too shabby.
Missouri, as part of 25-state consortium, designates new Hepatitis C drug for Medicaid patients; reaches agreement that will save taxpayers millions of dollars in Fiscal Year 2016
Viekira to replace Sovaldi as preferred treatment option; pharmaceutical maker to pay rebate to the state
JEFFERSON CITY, MO – The State of Missouri, as part of a 25-state purchasing consortium that includes Texas, Michigan, and Wisconsin, entered into an agreement on Jan. 22, 2015 to begin using Viekira for Medicaid patients with Hepatitis C who meet certain medical criteria. Viekira was recently approved by the FDA on Dec. 19, 2014.
Under the agreement reached late last week, the company that makes Viekira, AbbVie, has agreed to provide a rebate to states participating in the consortium. For Missouri, it is estimated that switching to Viekira will reduce overall costs of treating Hepatitis C patients by 30 to 40 percent and result in savings of $4.2 million in Fiscal Year 2016.
Federal law requires states to make this treatment available to Hepatitis C patients who meet certain medical criteria. Effective immediately, Viekira replaces the drug Sovaldi as the preferred treatment option for Hepatitis C patients enrolled in Missouri’s Medicaid program who meet these criteria.
Missouri Medicaid patients who have been approved for Sovaldi as of Jan. 1, but have not yet started treatment, will now be prescribed Viekira. Patients who have already begun treatment with Sovaldi will continue to use Sovaldi for the remainder of their treatment. Sovaldi will also continue to be approved for patients for whom Viekira is not an effective substitute, which is estimated to be about 15 to 20 percent of Hepatitis C patients.
For an able bodied adult in a family of four to be eligible for Medicaid in Missouri, the family must earn less than 19 percent of the federal poverty level, or $4,532 a ye
No dilution likely for over a year. They have a decent pile of cash thanks to NVS returning MEK-162. The P3s for Selumetnib are all on AZN, and the P3s for 162 and 818 are almost all on NVS.
The biggest dilution fear had been that they would push the 2 blood cancer drugs to hard. But this seams unlikely now that they have several shots on goal w/o them.
Of course the present PPS is a lot higher than 2 weeks ago. But that is another story.
Given the huge pop, the ability to hold anywhere near $7 surprised me. I expected a drop back to the mid-low 6's.
So I see a very strong chart.
The new drug is primarily melanoma, true.
The 2 MEKs (selumetnib with AstraZ and binitumab ) are in about 60 trials across many indications. And 6 P3 trials are in progress.
They also have several other candidates that are in P2 for various indications.
It is OK to be ignorant, but it is stupid to give advice w/o trying to learn how ignorant you are.
Correction, looks like they will be looking at the IRAK4 agent in lymphomas.
Aurgene's pattent and some other papers indicated anti autoimmune as the purpose, but there is some comonality here. Rituxan for example is used in both settings.
I am real skeptical of the PDL-1 agent from a practical perspective. They will be chasing several other VERY well funded outfits that have a clear first mover advantage. So this will not have to be just a little better than existing agents, it will have to be a lot better. And it will still be expensive to develope.
The IRAK4 agent seams more a candidate for CRIS. It is an anti autoimmune disiese (and similar) drug candidate. As a novel agent (I have not seen anything else in this space) it is an easier (and cheaper) path. Also, I like getting out of the oncology space, too corwded. The risk of failure is high though.
It will of course a couple years before we start getting any decent reads.
Technically true. But they have 31% of existing shares contractually committed to tendering if needed, and 5M new shares.
That leaves so few shares needed from elsewhere that this is a done deal.
Though I believe ENTA is worth north of $60 by spring, you have to be careful about using P/E ratios on this type investment. A DCF model is MUCH more rational.
The reason is that the vast majority of their revs are part of a single drug that will have milestones, then quickly hit peek sales, then decline (over some uncertain time frame). Even the second gen HCV agent just tweeks this a bit.