Barclays-
I think he sounded a little nervous/tentative today(possibly sleep deprived)-
On the question about the effect of the label on adoption, he was particularly obtuse:
Harvey stated that docs were deciding to prescribe based on robustness of efficacy data, leaving the less sophisticated(and/or less informed listeners-the ones you want to persuade)with the suggestion that though the side effects risks of Iclusig may be real(and for all they know, greater than with some of the other TKIs), the superior efficacy made taking the added risk worth it.
I think what happened here is Harvey got lost in the maze of his own explanation, and failed to make the important point, which I believe is that, yes, docs review all label risks, but that, on the basis of the successful launch so far, they appear to realize that the risks noted probably have more to do with the more severely ill population tested in Pace, and that any or all of the other TKIs might have shown as many or more such side effects if administered to a similar population. Therefore, this label, as Ariad projected before, hasn't had any effect on a very successful launch.
Although I appreciate that it's best to under promise and over deliver, I think he should have, at the least, clarified this distinction.
Therefore, I didn't think it was one of his best performances...
But no big deal.
Regards,
bw
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
