Replies to post #108678 on Biotech Values

[mcbio]

I guess I don't really understand why INCY's putative splitting of the JAK market in RA makes RIGL's market any bigger?

I think we're both of the mindset that the PFE drug is going to be on market first. Unless RIGL's drug shows head to head superiority, they're going to be placed behind PFE's drug in the treatment hierarchy. The market that falls into RIGL's lap is then not so much bigger than what INCY may be able to garner by sharing the JAK / RA population with PFE.

RIGL's potential share of the RA market may or may not be bigger than INCY's share, but I feel more comfortable in RIGL's share given the wide disparity in market caps between the two companies. Of course, the comparison is a bit muddled given that a large portion of INCY's valuation is apparently tied to the MF drug where the market may have already priced in extremely high expectations for the Phase 3 results. I just don't feel comfortable in those situations.

I will say that I do think RIGL has a better chance of capturing a larger portion of the RA market than INCY just because its SYK inhibitor is differentiated from both INCY and PFE's JAK drugs. I.e., I think RIGL's drug has a chance to show superiority in some RA patients over PFE's drug because it's differentiated. INCY probably has less of a chance to show superiority because it's drug is in the same class.

[rkrw]

Rigel's not having shown efficacy in TNF failures is a large weakness.