I think the downside and upside are more than is being portrayed here. I think 5 or more if positive ruling and under $1 if negative. JMHO.
He didn't leave that out....he quite clearly said AVNR was claiming a SS reduction in pain (as stated).
What is key however is that the reduction is relative to baseline and not to placebo...they can and will claim it's due to the study being underpowered. Unfortunately, apparent lack of any trend makes that weak (as stated).
Thanks Starcraft...I don't think it will help or hurt. While their claim on the PRIME data is very weak, they have all the DPN data with statistical significance to counter the defendants. Probably a non-issue
BTW...no need to respond to the brainless pumpers who try to sanitize the message here. Just ignore them.
They were great numbers and the market is saying "sales don't matter if the patent issue is unresolved".
The 15.5% gain by itself is similar to the last two post-Tgiving weeks (16.7% and 14.1% gains last 2 years). What's really different however is that the gains in the 2 previous years followed big drops for Tgiving week (16.7% and 8.8% drops). This year it only dropped 0.2% so net for the 2 weeks this year was much better.
Based on Google searches I think the DTC campaign ended a couple of weeks ago. Looks like it generated about 50% of the searches compared to the first DTC campaign. The effects of that should be hitting in the coming months...along with the increased rep numbers as you mentioned.
I think there is also an "earlier under certain circumstances" part of the settlement. Expect that would reduce the 6 months in the case of a settlement.
Also, they settled before the Galderma reversal...very different environment then.
Harry...taking you at your word that your source has been unreliable.
FWIW, they have been straight-out lying to you. They gave you fabricated IMS numbers, they fed you impossible-to-know (and bad) info, they are not your friends.
Needle-free delivery systems are quite painful....so yes, a competitor but not affecting the nasal niche much from where it currently stands.
Never would have believed the discount would jump so much in one Q...that being said, it's a bit of a game. AVNR ups the price 7.8% in the face of a 5% increase in discount. Net, it's a gain.
FWIW, gross run rate with the price increase matches KK's report of $120MM (almost...119MM IME)
The best KK, the king of the positive spin, could say was "disappointing"...no reason not to take him at his word this time.
After the cut in study size I don't think it was supposed to be powered for statistical significance from placebo. However, the fact that they couldn't pull anything encouraging out does not bode well.
That being said, they were obviously looking for statistical signficance. Short of that they were looking for indications of a dosing/treatment effect that could guide future studies and suggest they are on the right path. Seems that Thomas Wei asked the critical question about any kind of effect or was it "scatter"...seemed like they implied the latter before launching into tangents.
Didn't consider that at all. Could add to the number but expect it's small so early in the process.
If I estimated total pills sold correctly I'd think the analyst estimate for net revenues should be beaten. Over $23MM IMO.
Hi Ray, Saw your SA comment on interactions of N with other drugs. I agree there must be interactions given the effect on CYP450...However, your comment seems to imply that the Q-digoxin interaction is through that mechanism. While there is an interaction (Q necessitates reducing the digoxin dose) it's not due to the CYP450 effect as digoxin's metabolism is not via that mechanism. Not sure that the ultra-low Q dose in N does to digoxin and if it's still a significant effect.
Most probably assume KK has seen preliminary data. He talked about expecting statistically significant results (albeit related to PK/PD data and not treatment arms...not sure what that means) and the stock shot up. He potentially backed away from that and/or suggested it would not be statistically significant and the stock dropped.
Also expect that the subtle changes in how he's wording things related to this is not going over well...everyone is trying to read the tea leaves and he seems to be dancing around issues a bit. It all may be random/inconsequential wording but in that case would not be surprised if it's being over-read.
I agree with #$%$...I would have estimated just over 11% and just over 9%...with 12% and 10% being well within the error of that estimation.
I hope he meant they'll be reporting data before the end of the year. I can't imagine they haven't unblinded it and started (finished?) analyzing the data.