Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (50599)	12/31/2018 6:16:54 PM
From: quidditch	Respond to of 52153

Forgive me for jumping in here, but it's a question that has been rolling around the noggin since watching the Besarab video. Let's assume that for this subset of patients (ESA hyporesponders, because of hepcidin/inflammation, whatever) roxa proves to be superior in MACE events to ESA comparators. Let's also 'hazard' an approximation of ~ 30% of CKD patients as hyporesponders. Is that too high or about right? Then you have the incident dialysis trial and cohort, and maybe (likely?) there too MACE superiority for roxa. (Layered on these two subsets is the significant bundling issue.) For the balance of CKD patients in the nine (?) trials, let's assume-- and hope--that roxa is non-inferior in MACE events (putting aside for the moment NDD patients on roxa who may or may not show an eGFR effect). Does such a matrix of results suggest variegated MACE superiority and non-inferiority results and, therefore, variegated labeling and probable take-up (and rate of take-up) by CKD practitioners for these respective subsets of patients? In particular, does this set-up establish a rationale for those on ESAs who are not hypo-responders to remain on those meds, never mind easier and less costly administration in the case of roxa!!?? Inertia factor, I guess?