Replies to post #2785 on Revance Therapeutics Inc (RVNC)

[mouton29]

Starts at 47:43.

His main thesis is that Daxify achieves its result doubling the toxin dose. I thought that been argued before but is just wrong.

If it were correct, why limit his criticism to the aesthetic market, which is what he does. For therapeutic market if you can get the same result by doubling the dose, why don’t people do exactly that with Botox and why would Daxi have any advantage.

[DewDiligence]

The “double dose” canard is just that. Slide #20 in RVNC’s latest corporate slide set (https://investors.revance.com/static-files/8d1f2575-2f62-4f78-8044-abcf5fd06ada ) shows that 40U of Daxxify has the same amount of active toxin as 20U of Botox. The same amount, not twice as much.

Further, for glabellar lines specifically, the dose-limiting factor is ptosis. Daxxify at its 40U labeled dose does not produce more ptosis than Botox at its 20U labeled dose. In fact, Daxxify produces ptosis in a smaller proportion of patients than Botox: #msg-157639118, #msg-160262702.

RVNC’s competitors, including EOLS, will continue to try to hoodwink investors with the double-dose canard to divert attention from the manifest inferiority of their own products. EOLS is even running a trial testing a doubled dose of Jeaveau in glabellar lines. This trial, which will read out in mid 2023, will show that doubling the dose of Jeuveau leads to a slightly longer duration of effect—but not as long a duration as Daxxify at Daxxify's regular (labeled) dose. Moreover, the doubled dose of Jeuveau will likely show an unacceptably high rate of ptosis.