Replies to post #190205 on Biotech Values

[willyw]

I really have no clue, no ability to produce any meaningful estimate.

Numbers are sparse, hidden, conflicting with what Abbvie mentioned earlier versus what is reported weekly..

I am not seeing a lot of people posting about their Abbvie TX, but I also don't think that is a useful measuring tool.

I also think the numbers may be disappointing this first quarter, for many impatient investors, but they will start showing much more promise as the year rolls on.
GILD's OTOH may be getting close in the USA to what that private payer system may be able to handle. (GILD's investors may later be sad that RX's stop going up and up and up) : )

Working backwards though..... if Abbvie said 2 million rate at the end of the year 2015 (which could be conservative) I would expect the 4th Q to be much higher than the first quarter. Also I have heard that some initial applications for TX were denied (as has been common for various companies treatments). The 1st quarter may be a disappointment but it may not be a good ruler for what ABBV/ENTA will ultimately do in 2015.

I think 20% market share is high for 1Q. 10% would be a fine start, but it won't stay at that 10% for the year.
This is way higher than reported scripts, and way under the year end guidance Abbvie provided.

But I'm as unqualified a guy to ask as you can find.

[dangerM]

pure guesswork:

a) insurances
- Well, IMS (rough calculation ~ 2700 trx) _and_ Symphony (~ 4700 - don't nail me on exact numbers) both seem to do pure guessing, _if_ the reply in the following tweet is right:

FYI IMS #HCV scripts: IMS is blocked from #Viekira scripts through the ESRX distr., IMS not a reliable on market share between $GILD & $ABBV

— H3NPHLO (@H3NPHLO) January 27, 2015

(Same issue for Symphony. They stress to 'look at the growth trends in the data, vs focusing on the script numbers.').
- As well, pharma reps seem to be quite negative ("HCV at Abbvie is worse than living in hell.") http://www.cafepharma.com/boards/showthread.php?t=575995&page=5 - though I believe this is sth that differs by state.
- In theory Abbvie has quite some advantages - treatment with good response, no need for a specialist to get a prescription in the Express Scripts deal, yet I believe doctor's and patients just did not fully grasp that there was a new product same as effective as Harvoni

b) public sector
- I think VA and Medicaid just had to get used to Vpak in Q1. I also believe that they are quite restrictive in how they treat (in spite of the discounts).
- Abbvie has many presentations at EASL about the cost benefit of treating early, probably to get payers, perhaps even public payers to treat without biopsies (like in the Express-Scripts deal) and all (does not sound like fun, having a biopsy and needing a cirrhosis to get treatment).
- All in all I do not believe this will outweigh the private sector.

c) Europa
- virtually nothing

All in all, maybe only 150mn sales in Q1? But it could be anything (which is why I sold my Enanta shares and used a small parts of my proceeds for a straddle/strangle on Abbvie)