Here was my reasoning from June 6 (before they cha

Quote:

---

I just listened to the conference presentation. It answered one question of mine. Where did they get the yearly prescription price of $120,000.

$118,000 (what NP mentions) was the price of the newest cancer treatment out there at the time. That happens to be the price Verastem set on its drug.

What they fail to realize is that in HIV there's going to be a major pushback from insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid at that price point. With all of the other options out there, they're going to kill their market share.

Not only will it kill market share in HIV but it will do so to a lesser extent in cancer. Verastem has a patient potential of 15,000. Those patients are in dire need and Verastem's drug is their only hope. But because of their price and black box warnings they have under 25 prescriptions.

I can see why Cytodyn needs a one price fits all model. But basing leronlimab's price on a failed cancer drug launch is not the way to go. Given the superiority of leronlimab and a proper price, market share will more than make up for the dismal prospects of a $120,000 launch.

With the current pricing of HIV drugs $35,000 would be more realistic. In cancer that would be such a bargain that insurance companies might even waive pre-approval and leronlimab could achieve 70% usage or more in metastatic cancers.

---