For NBIX I brought up the add back option with Lupron, and the advantage of depot formulations as a potential issue that could be a major market issue for elagolix at least a year ago or so. Back then no one cared to even respond to these concerns and ignored them as hog wash (in a different forum of course then this one).
My gut instinct is usually a very good starting place, and one has to think this is going to be an issue for market acceptance. A pill beats a shot, but not if the shot is every 3 months. Depends on how often the pill needs to be taken.
I still need to look at the detailed results of the latest trial to get a handle on it. The initial thesis for elagolis was bone loss so minimal that add back therapy would not be something needed in the typical case. Pop a pill, deal with endometreosis on a long-term basis, forget the bone loss. New paradigm of care in a pill form. The real issue here may be more complicated then the hoped for hypothetical result.
Which is probably why the market has been so luke warm on the news.
But keep in mind people, twice, that is twice now, the market got Provenge wrong, they really got tysabri wrong, at one point that totally blew telaprevir, and the market is extremely good at getting drugs wrong that are new paradigm creating drugs. Which makes looking at elagolix in a more detailed basis very worth one's time.
It still looks like however, I'd say, what, 3 years to market? Not even going to start phase III until late 2010.
Tinker
AI
