Replies to post #78186 on Biotech Values

[genisi]

In general, I don't think anyone expects biosimilars to behave like conventional oral solid dose generics and capture 90% of the market quickly following launch. A key question imo is - how willing clinicians and payers are to use a cheaper biosimilar. This is influenced by many issues: type of treatment market, critical care or chronic, dosing (like with Avonex vs. Rebif), device of administration (as with GH biosimilars which have only made a smallish impact - less than 5% of market share), meaningful clinical or label differentiation to the brands (recall that even with no such differences Dynepo was a failure).

[DewDiligence]

Re: MNTA / Kevin Sharer

["The chief executive of Amgen forecast on Monday that "smart" biotechnology companies may be able to retain up to half the sales of their drugs once they face competition from cheaper so-called biosimilars... Conventional drugs can lose up to 90 percent of their sales within a year once they face generic competition, in part because many companies often begin selling heavily discounted copycat formulations. By contrast, relatively few companies are now capable of making generic forms of biotech drugs."]

that's what i speculated would happen to the lovenox market if there were only one generic entrant (rather than Dew's 80/20 model)

As stated in #msg-37882121, your “best case” and my case including an AG launch by SNY come out the same: approximately $900M of annual sales for the NVS/MNTA generic. So the difference between your model and my model boils down to semantics.