Akki, the next line down from the same slide would give you the answer: Margins assumed at 90% due to low COSs (Cost of Good Sold).
So $1.2bn p.a. market would enable PYC to bank $1.08bn.
Sarepta's Exondys-51 has a much higher cost base as it has to be systemically delivered at 30 or 50 mg/kg/week by intravenous (IV) infusion. In their example patient of 33.5 kg at 30 mg/kg, a total of 1,005 mg/week is needed. On the other hand, PYC's VP-001 to treat RP-11 only requires a very small dose of 1 microgram (0.001 mg) injected into each eyeball every 6 months (26 wks). The difference is 13,000,000x which is enormous. In part that could be because Sarepta's drug delivery Cell Penetrating Peptide is not as efficient as PYC's. If that is true, PYC would be in the box seat for other drug companies to knock on their door. $1.08bn p.a. could just be the tip of the iceberg.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)