DCF Valuation Model for Invex Therapeutics, page-80

My own view is that you should be very careful incorporating incidence rates higher than the traditional 6-8. The reason I say this is that although IIH is a rare disease, in some countries the condition is well understood and their health system are very much on the look out for cases.

I refer you to the following abstract of a paper which looks at the ongoing possibility that "now" IIH is both under and over diagnosed.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41433-022-02361-3

The references cited are very useful and will help you form a view on incidence.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41433-023-02456-5

This link takes you to a comment/response to this paper and was published within the last week and is authored by none other than Alexandra J Sinclair and Susan P Mollan.

Before incorporating higher incidence rates in to a model I would want to have a real understanding of how much of these higher incidence rates is from changed focus/diagnostic criteria and how much comes from the structural growth in the underlying indication. I suspect a good percentage of the increase over the traditional baseline is due to improved/earlier diagnosis and these paitients may not in need of immediate treatment and will be guided towards lifestyle interventions in the first instance.