Replies to post #3657 on Antares Pharma, Inc. (ATRS)

[Cave In Temptor]

"he said, the need for an injector for those with limited hand dexterity is BS."

Then, why is Medac wasting its time with a pen, as they have an ideal and perfect PFS ? http://www.metoject.ca/

On that matter, why is Medac discontinuing the PFS to the profit of the pen in UK ?

Someone should tell Medac the error they are making !!!!!

LMAO

[Bio_pete]

So are you trying to say the thumb is not needed to use the Otrexup injector? Maybe you need to look at the Otrexup user guide.

For the last 2 plus years I've stated ATRS would have difficulty signing a partnership in the EU due to lower priced competition.

Are you trying to say Medac didn't conduct user studies for their device?

Are you trying to say Beckinson Dickinson manufactures some Micky Mouse device in comparison to ATRS?

I'm just saying the need for an injector is overstated. If a person can use ATRS or Medac's injector then they could use a basic pre-filled syringe.

Before you say I'm wrong look at the steps needed to use Otrexup.

[Jon20ABX]

About Rasuvo pricing....I copied the following dialog from Larry Smith's "Smith On Stocks" website...

Larry,

Question about potential Rasuvo pricing. Since Otrexup is already approved, and because it’s already covered by over 90% of the insurance plans, and because Otrexup and Rasuvo are both branded drug (i.e. covered by tier-3 insurance rules), would Medac have any motivation to price Ravuso anything other than very similar to Otrexup? I understand that a few plans (like Medicare) are negotiated amongst providers and the lowest price can win there, but for the majority of the other plans, especially the large plans, isn’t it a matter of gaining coverage then “may the best drug win” (all other things being equal, e.g. the co-pay amounts required)?

Thanks

Larry Smith says:

In virtually every situation in which I have been involved with in competitive situations in which there are two or more similar products in a category, companies do not compete on price. The reason is that if one company cuts price and is effective in gaining market share, the other company must respond. At best, the price cutting company might achieve a slight and probably temporary market share gain in terms of units, but they do not maximize potential revenues. It also runs the risk of a downward price spiral. Since Otrexup has only a small unit market right now, this is not a compelling strategy. My expectation is comparable pricing.

In looking for a reason why this argument might be wrong, the best that I can come up with is that Medac concludes that Otrexup is dramatically over-priced and a lower price is needed to get physicians to prescribe. Actually, this argument is not quite right. Physicians prescribe on how they see the merits of a product. It is payors who make decisions based on price. However, it seems that payors are not balking at putting Otrexup on tier 3 formulary status at current prices. As for those very few who fear generic pricing of Rasuvo, there is no chance.

It seems to me that Medac will try to differentiate Rasuvo on the basis of product characteristics and the one noticeable differentiation is on titration. With Rasuvo, physicians can titrate in 2.5 mg/ mm2/ week increments while Otrexup is titrated in 5.0 mg/mm2/ week increments. Here is what one of my consultants had to say about this. With initial treatment using oral methotrexate, patients are usually started on an oral dose of 2.5 mg/mm2/week and initially titrated up at 2.5 mg/mm2/week increments. However, as the dose gets into 10.0, 12.5 or 15.0 mg/mm2/week they are more likely to increase by 5.0 mg/mm2/week. Increasing the dose from 5.0 mg/mm2/week by 2.5 is a 50% increase in dose. Increasing from 12.5 mg/mm2/week to 15.0 mg/mm2/week is a 24% increase. Antares expects that most of the dosing of Otrexup to be in the 15.0 to 20.0 range. The point is that at these ranges, it is more likely that titration will be in 5.0 mg/mm2/week increments.