InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 53
Posts 3357
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/26/2013

Re: Vavavoom post# 2791

Monday, 01/27/2020 3:15:26 PM

Monday, January 27, 2020 3:15:26 PM

Post# of 3283
My one comment to

$200m revenue- doable -yes

is that is as close to a worst case scenario as one could anticipate if Rolontis is priced as a biosimilar.

Sandoz's wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for their biosimilar Ziextenzo is 37% below Neulasta and 9% below the WAC for both Fulphila and Udenyca. Right now we don't know the average sales price (ASP) for Ziextenzo but for argument's sake lets assume it is the same as its WAC or 37% below Neulasta's WAC but only 13% below Neulasta's ASP. (Note -ASP takes into consideration rebates and discounts. Also note, I found it hard to believe that I calculated only 13% using #s from the chart below but I just checked Spectrum's Presentation and they have the same 13%).

PRICING COMPARISON FOR PEGFILGRASTIM REFERENCE AND BIOSIMILARS
Product WAC* ASP
Neulasta $6,231 $4,432
Udenyca $4,175 $4,165
Fulphila $4,175 $3,929
Ziextenzo $3,925 N/A

So what am I getting at? Assume if Rolontis gets 10% of the market and the market potential has only gone down 13% from $4B they are still competing in a $3.5B market, and 10% of that is still $350M. I find myself, and I'm sure others too, forgetting how big of a market Rolontis will be competing in. It's pretty big and there's plenty to go around.

Here's the article from where I got the #s for the chart.
https://biosimilarsrr.com/2019/11/15/sandoz-sets-ziextenzo-price-37-below-wac-for-reference-neulasta/