has daiichi sankyo miss priced inavir

I read a recent report on Biota which indicated that:

a. Biota needs to see what inroads Inavir makes into the Relenza/Tamiflu market in Japan and that this will dictate the demand to commercialise the drug outside of Japan; and

b. Inavir is priced at a 30% premium to the other flu drugs.

Now I know Inavir is technically superior to both Relenza/ Tamiflu in the sence you only need to take it once and there is no risk of resistence. However, as far as a patient is concerned, in the absense of known resistence strains of the flu circulating, I would have thought a 30% premium saving would be a significant incentive for a significant number of patients to still choose Relenza/Tamiflu instead of Inavir.

In other words, I think Daiichi Sankyo have got the pricing wrong on the introduction of Inavir. While introducing the product I believe they should have priced it at a similar price until such time as it achieved a significant share of the market. They could always have increased the price latter when they had achieved good sales if market dynamics indicated a higher price was the optimal price.

Before signing any ROW agreement for Lani, Biota need to be aware that Inavir sales performance this quarter may be significantly hampered by DS pricing policy.

Biota has indicated an additional $200-$250m is required to complete both treatment and prophylaxis trials. I would prefer to see Biota somehow fund its 50% share of these trials $100 -$125M if they cannot get a good deal. Possably seperating the treatment trials from the prophylaxis trails could lower the upfront costs.

I believe that Lani (i.e.Inavir) is a potential blockbuster drug if sold at a similar price to Relenza/ Tamiflu. However, if priced as a 30% premium, I have an open mind as to how it will perform.

just something to keep in mind when we hear Inavir first quarter sales in the near future.

Regards

SP