Eylea v Beovu
Per CMS Part B dashboard spending (2017):
portal.cms.gov
Because avastin-IV is compounded, Only Lucentis & Eylea will be compared.
In 2017, for EYLEA average number of injection/year/subject was: 5.6
$10751/$960.91 = 11.2 mg ---> 5.6 injections (2 mg /injection)
In 2017, for LUCENTIS average number of injection/year/subject was : 5.3
$8865/372.28= 2.65 mg ---> 5.3 injection (0.5 mg/injection)
So, overall, we have tri loading injections (monthly) + 3 Q-ly injections (average ~16w intervals), for Eylea and Lucentis. Still, per CMS data Eylea hold +70% of the branded nAMD market.
Now, where will Beovu penetrate nAMD market? Without 4w dosing option, and with more SAE (and more severe)…Beuvo best regimen of 12w intervals is ALREADY part of the STANDARD OF CARE for E and L in real world. (due to cost control and due to proven efficacy)
For refractory nAMD or purely responder on iv anti-VEGF regime, any subject will need more frequent dosing (4w intervals)…and that Beovu can not deliver (per label).
So, is FEAR logically placed when NVS talk about Beovu aggressive lunch (sure, prove it?) and stupid investors listen it blindly, or follow few MDs that have no better way to waste their time?
Cheers |
