Replies to post #368813 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[lizzy241]

capt, page 8 can someone explain why the NHS uses inclisiran as a product then uses the same inclisiran in a different context such as a condition a person has. What am I missing?

They noted that several
treatments available in the NHS were used by only a small proportion of
people in REDUCE-IT or not at all. The adviser noted inclisiran, which is
recommended by NICE for treating primary hypercholesterolaemia or
mixed dyslipidaemia as an adjunct to diet in adults, was not a permitted
concomitant treatment in REDUCE-IT. Therefore, the effect of icosapent
ethyl on reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease in people who have
inclisiran is unknown. The clinical adviser also commented that standard

[funnygi2]

Thanks. Is there a link or portal to enter comments on their erroneous conclusions? I'm going to put together a point by point rebuttal over the next few days.

[Nukemtiltheyglow]

WTF? Icosapent ethyl is not recommended, within its marketing authorisation, for
reducing the risk of cardiovascular events in adults who:
• have a high cardiovascular risk with raised triglycerides (150 mg/dL
[1.7 mmol/litre] or more) and
• are having statins and
• have established cardiovascular disease, or
• diabetes and at least 1 other cardiovascular risk factor.

I smell a rat or multiple rats working to seriously undermine Vazkepa. One of the consultees has to be Nissen, combined with GSK lobbyists.

How can the Brits refute an 8700 patient study in what 30 countries? KM & Company have their work cut out for them. Amarin needs to nip this in the bud immediately.

Thanks for posting Captain. This is incredible.

[sts66]

Thnx - after I quit reading the board yesterday I found that on my own somehow and was so disgusted by what I read I was too mad to come back here and list all the BS I found, which others have noted is really long - as in almost every section of that doc questions R-IT results and they conclude there is no UK population that would benefit from V, and it appears the cost was a huge part of their problem:

It noted the company’s base case results were all above £20,000 per QALY gained

They actually set a price on what a person's life is worth? I guarantee you there are drugs the NHS covers that have higher costs per QALY. And this document does not appear to take savings to the health care system from keeping people out of the hospital into account either - it's a totally one-sided opinion on the value of V.

There's also some memory in the back of my brain from years ago that says the UK pays special attention and gives greater scrutiny to a new drug that would cost the NHS more than a certain amount of money per year (QALY is not the sole consideration), and the number I recall was something like only $60M USD - that may not be correct, but the cost was shockingly low, and I cannot rediscover the document I found that in, think it was buried deep within the NHS or NICE website. The poor view of this committee on the value of V makes me believe the annual cost of V is expected to be well above that number, so they are trying to find every reason to not endorse V.

Ok, just spent half an hour trying to find that doc again - didn't find the exact one I recall reading, but this one is just as good - in 2017 NICE and the NHS introduced a ‘budget impact test’, to assess the level of the affordability challenge that new drugs pose - and the magic number isn't $60M USD, it's only £20m or more per year!

https://www.nice.org.uk/news/feature/changes-to-nice-drug-appraisals-what-you-need-to-know

If my math is right, and assuming the cost of a month of V is $240 like KM has mentioned, if more than 9,375 people in the UK are prescribed V, the total annual cost to the NHS will exceed £20m/yr - this is why that group doesn't believe V is worth the cost even though they don't come out and say it.