<<I want to be clear that I am not necessarily advocating a partnership for every indication or for evey geo area. The point that I am making is that it's not a slam-dunk decision.>>
I wonder how many times an inferior product became predominent due to superior marketing of the inferior product. Sales and marketing is where the most money needs to be spent, now that the drug is approved. Marketing and sales are a perfectly good reason to take on a partner. Speed to market is an imperative. I think a partner would get the product out there faster and further the arguement for iplex...quicker than if INSM were to go it alone. There is a strong likelyhood that they would do it virtually free. For a deal of some sort that would enable them to get some of the future revs from additional indications. We could crush TRCA yesterday with a good marketing approach today. And they will need to....they have a head start. If INSM is smart (I believe they are) they are already selling/marketing for a promise of delivery in 2Q.
Does it make more sense to partner in markets based on specialization? I am not sure how the medical industry is set up but it would seem that some specializations (like Pediatrics) would be harder to break into with a new sales force/product than others. When considering the small "approved" market for iPlex it may make sense to partner now, focus around development/approval of new(more financially rewarding)indications and eventually develop sales forces around markets that are easier to enter and/or provide a larger return.
As stated the real return for INSM is not necessarily in this market (pediatrics). We could spend lots of much needed cash entering a market that would immediately be capped (no more opportunity to sell other indications). Cancer and Diabetes is where control of distribution would be most appropriate for long term return.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
