Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Why couldn’t the PPS increase correlate with the recent spike in COVID cases?
Have them run a Lipoprotein a level.
Yes… I get the pill burden but it is at least a way of securing the branded product and quality assurance.
The 500mg Vascepa caps are much smaller and it’s my understanding that there cannot be substitution for the 1000mg generic if the 500mg is prescribed.
Idea….
Why not discontinue making the thousand milligram capsules and only make the 500 mg capsules?
The company would then make sure the price remains the same as the current 4 g dosing with the 1000mg capsules that way the patients and insurance carriers don’t get stuck with any higher out-of-pocket costs.
There’s no 500 mg generic and therefore this would eliminate substitution?
Great info.
Thank u.
Per Good Rx you are correct….
I’ll ask the rep tomorrow and update the board.
I was told today by the rep that the Monthly cost for 4grams daily is the same whether or not you take the 500mg or 1000mg caps.
I haven’t looked at it.
Exactly
Sleven,
I do not know…
According to my Rep the pharmacies have not substituted 500mg V for gV at an equivalent daily dose.
I will start showing my patients the sizes of both and asking them which size they prefer to swallow.
Not that I’m aware of and my Rep hasn’t had any issues with it.
Yes.
500mg Vascepa
Get this….. if you want your patient to get Branded Vascepa you can write the 500mg caps - 4caps bid.
Same cost to the patient on a monthly basis at 1000mg caps - easier to swallow and cannot be substituted.
Clinician’s should take full responsibility of their education.
The Reduce it data is strong, discussed at many well attended conferences, and published in NEJM years ago....
What a shame.
Crazy that the judge would base her decision on that nuance versus everything else at stake.
Didn’t they state that they weren’t against it?
I target LDL reductions that accomplish both a LDL < 70 and a > 50% reduction from “Pre-treated” baseline LDL in high risk patients.
Cheers...
Hopefully the world catches on.
G
Kiwi,
I’m a noninvasive cardiologist.
The outcome data is independent of CRP of levels - look at the Forest plot (Figure 2 of the NEJM article).
Why wouldn’t the CRP level increase as a result of progressive ASCVD in an “at risk” population as opposed to the thought of mineral oil supplementation?
G
What is your ins req to be on the drug?
Tricare wants TGs > 200and they don’t specify nonfasting......so... we redraw a non-fasting lipid profile and if TGs are > 200 they cover it.
Dmiller shows up also when there’s blood on the street.
Many thanks!
What are u thinking?
Tricare prior Authorization for CV indication:
Question 12. Is the TG level between 200 and 499md/dL
No - Coverage not approved
How do they get away with making their own TG cut offs for coverage other than what was used in Reduce It?
What would it look like for current share holders if the company were to split and sell off US market?
Use the proceeds to fund and concentrate on opportunities outside of the US.
I’m a high volume prescriber and it’s easy to “sell” them on an OM3 extract with proven data. Patients like the “safety” of OM3.
I show them the Reduce It inclusion criteria and they can relate to the study population and therefore the benefits.
It’s the easiest drug to get them to accept in my office but the execution remains difficult due to cost and coverage.
How about a “ LIFE SAVING, high potency omega 3 extract proven to promote plaque stabilization AND regression”?
It’s crazy to think about how poorly this drug has been adopted in clinical practice.
I like it!
TA works only if you stick to your rules strictly and methodically.
People are confusing price targets based on TA (which can turn on a dime based on market reactions) and FA price targets.
The time horizons are vastly different. If you like to buy and hold - TA can be nerve racking because of all the “noise”. If you like to trade.... TA allows for greater success.
FFS please keep sharing your TA thoughts for those who enjoy them.
Most are all here in hopes of a great $ return and an appreciation for what Vascepa is.
I wonder how many scripts had the “Reduce it” indication on them and were still substituted? If HN offered gV in that situation would you agree on infringement?
There should be a PA process to get gV since it represents a much smaller market for use and hence its approval. If the use is for MACE reduction in a CV patient - gV is not covered.
Hopefully positive COVID data gets VASCEPA the exposure it needs.... oh, and by the way, look at what it does for CVD prevention!
Many thanks Marjac.
Shortening of thrust in a falling wedge. Look for the upside breakout.
Their performance incentives - bonuses are based on total scripts including gV.
The company isn’t penalizing them for the substitution.....for now.
As of today... ~580 Reps and sales performance metrics still include V and gV total scripts.
Give me a sec.... I’ll get more details and current rep count.
Apparently their performance metrics are for total scripts filled - even if they are converted to gV.
Their performance metrics include all scripts - including generic fills.
Rep count ~580 as of last week for US per my Rep.
Hopefully at ACC in May.