I agree that oral medications with be preferred over intracavernosal and intraurethral therapies. Now, as to your belief that patients/MDs don't care about statistics, I disagree as both parties care if the product doesn't work.
Why not frame it this way. Let's say you have two new headache remedies coming on the market. One is very powerful and works wonders, while the other is a weaker product that the company believes will have moderate efficacy on mild to slight headaches. Which one of these will be used?
As for your assumption that Zonagen will be "very profitable," what is the basis for this statement? As I said before, if Pfizer prices it lower than previously anticipated, then you have a real big problem with the investment bankers models. To provide you with an example, at the assumption in 2000 that the price per tablet is $7.50, the rate of usage is 36 uses per year, and Vasomax is able to capture a 10% market share, given the rumored 20% back end royalty that Zonagen is purportedly negotiating, this would mean revenues to Zonagen of $49 million dollars. The company's fully diluted market cap today is $400+ million. So, you are paying 8x projected 2000 sales. If you don't see a disconnect here, then we obviously disagree. But please don't imply that this investment has a tremendous amount of upside unless you quantify those numbers.
As for the marketing partner, in case you were asleep at the wheel, since last spring, Zonagen was actively seeking a European partner to license Vasomax to. Funny, but I don't remember there being any takers before, so why should there be now. Maybe they know something that you don't?? |
