Hi Mozzarc,Yes, I take your point that a TKR costs a lot more...

Hi Mozzarc,

Yes, I take your point that a TKR costs a lot more than $1,500, but a course of iPPS isn't in any sense a substitute for a TKR. To get a TKR your knee has to be pretty well stuffed, and at that point you're way past the point where Pentosan will help you, except as a pain management tool; it's not going to grow you a new knee.

Insurers in Australia will generally reimburse non-PBS prescriptions up to around $50 per script, with a maximum of around $400 per annum. Given that the total cost of top extras cover is only about $600 p.a., it would obviously not be in any way viable or realistic to subsidise the cost of a course of iPPS @$1,500, except in very limited cases and circumstances (and I can't think what they might be). (Admittedly it's different in the US, where drug prices are often very high; Pentosan retails at about US$900 per 100 capsules, and the insurers generally subsidise that back to about a $60 patient co-contribution, but it's not a widely used drug, and as soon as it becomes so, the same financial constraints will apply to the insurers (i.e. if they subsidise it, they'll all go broke)).

The point is this; IMO for Zilosul to get off the ground, and for PAR to take advantage of its first-mover position, it needs to be a PBS-subsidised mass-market drug, available through a GP to anyone who presents with a scan confirming OA. If it's only available on the PBS through a specialist, or if it requires individual authorisation to prescribe it (like certain super-expensive antibiotics), it's never going to make a motza for shareholders. And while some people in severe pain might be prepared to pay for the entire cost themselves (and remember that you may need a course every year, and not just a one-off), I can't see this being a defensible or sustainable position for PAR, given the low cost of manufacture (presumably it's basically just Pentosan in water).

I'm not saying this isn't a great drug, with a huge potential, or that PAR hasn't done great work in beginning to commercialise it for use in humans; I'm just saying that we need to be realistic, and not get too far ahead of ourselves; we obviously shouldn't just multiply the size of the market (huge) with whatever $ number someone comes up with, extrapolate that to the share price, and crack out the champagne.

I absolutely do agree with you that the risk/reward ratio is excellent, and I'm happy that management's interests are so closely aligned with the interests of the other shareholders.