Immupharma Share Discussion Threads

[nobbygnome] 15/9/2020 14:26

And for me the whole of the management is deluded. Any team who can continue with a drug like Lupuzor with so much evidence against it, cannot be trusted IMHO.

[nobbygnome] 15/9/2020 14:23

Do they have regulatory agreement that a bioequivalence study isn't sufficient for approval? We aren't talking about biosimilars here....

[sicilian_kan] 15/9/2020 14:21

Those two products are Zimmer's babies not McCarthy's. The presentation suggests the bioequivalence studies are targeted for Q4 2020 to Q4 2021 with target launches in 2022, so we will know soon enough. I also note that Immupharma have long had a pipeline. They have never suggested that any of the other products would have near term launch dates. There must clearly be something about what they are saying and the prospects are huge.

[nobbygnome] 15/9/2020 14:12

>> s_k

On paper you could say the products look promising.....but show me the money. There is nowhere near enough evidence to tell if these are another couple of McCarthy bullsh*t stories or something of substance.

[nobbygnome] 15/9/2020 14:09

Don't be fooled into thinking that Eton licensing the drug validates the drug. The company I worked for licensed a drug for lupus in almost exactly the same circumstances after some dodgy but vaguely positive phase II data. All the company scientists who looked at the data recommended not to touch the product with a barge pole. However, the company had a hole in the pipeline for rheumatology type indications and for corporate reasons licensed the product. One hundred million pounds later not surprisingly it spectacularly failed......and would never have worked.

I put the chance of Lupuzor working at 5%.

[colsmith] 15/9/2020 14:01

Super - on P3 % success - surely its reasonable to assume about 50:50 as SK has done; there is at least logic to that as any other figure can't be justified but throw of a coin can!

[supernumerary] 15/9/2020 13:40

sk - 'tip you over the edge'? What on earth are you on about? I have no dog in this fight and am therefore utterly indifferent to the outcome of the trial, as I am to your predictions of it. Please do go ahead with the 'unrisked version' - I'll be amused to read it.

[brad44] 15/9/2020 11:49

Supernumerary
As for Avion, I've got literally no idea how competent they are to make that decision, and certainly wouldn't want to put money on it.

if you have no idea then why comment? best you run along..

[sicilian_kan] 15/9/2020 11:40

As for Avion they have annual sales of >$250m, with strong growth (50% pa).

[sicilian_kan] 15/9/2020 11:35

supernumerary, the numbers are subjective, the process is not. The expression means that risk and discount were taken into account. I can do a much higher value unrisked version if you like, should P3 be passed, but that might tip you over the edge so I shall refrain from doing that at the moment.

[supernumerary] 15/9/2020 11:29

So the process was correct, even if the numbers weren't? As for Avion, I've got literally no idea how competent they are to make that decision, and certainly wouldn't want to put money on it.

Good luck.

[divmad] 15/9/2020 11:28

So the 55% COS is perhaps the key assumption going forward. And given how the original P3 went, so much depends on an achievable set of primary endpoints. I am assuming that all parties concerned are totally focused on avoiding anything that might come near to a statistically indecisive outcome next time.

[sicilian_kan] 15/9/2020 10:47

Meanwhilst Avion have independently reviewed all the data, including the data that you cannot see, and are willing to license Lupuzor and to spend $25m developing it.

Fully risked means applying an appropriate discount ratio and a chance of success. One can discuss what that should be, however the calculations were fully risked in that both the above were applied.

[supernumerary] 15/9/2020 10:44

s-k - how can you say it's fully risked? I reckon the chances of passing Phase 3 are 10% or less, while Nobby, who's an acknowledged expert in the field, puts it at 0%...

[sicilian_kan] 15/9/2020 10:14

Nobby, any views on the below from IMM's pipeline which I think are also quite exciting. Would be grateful for your views - both seem to have near term opportunities (market launch / partnering) and both would dwarf the current market cap if successful. They appear to be completely ignored in the current market cap:

BioGlucagon - Existing glucagon products; poor solubility, inconvenient - variable dosing creates risks for patients. BioGlucagon has 100% solubility, can be formulated in pre-filled syringe pens and could be used in insulin pumps. Sales of existing products approx. $500m (p.a.). Bio equivalence study, with potential market launch date in 2022. Partnering opportunities.

BioAMP-B - offers a potential improvement on Amphotericin-B (“Amp-B”). Amp-B one of the few effective treatments for serious and life threatening fungal infections such as aspergillosis (lung infection). Leading AMP-B, ‘Ambisome’ causes serious kidney
toxicity in c.15% of patients. BioAMP-B’s target profile has superior safety profile to Ambisome. Sales of Ambisome in 2019 were $407m (p.a.). Next steps: Bio equivalence study, with potential market launch date in 2022.

See

[sicilian_kan] 15/9/2020 10:07

Hi Nobby. Grateful for the observations.

The trial speed will of course be influenced by a lot of factors, not least trial design which we await and which will be revealed if the SPA is approved.

Save to say that last time, it took 2 years 2 months from first dosing (US) and 1 year 10 months from first dosing (EU) to top line results being released.

Accept there can of course be delays. If I just wipe out H2 2023 revenues and half of 2024 revenues, I still get 66p per share, fully risked and fully discounted. However I have ignored $70m of milestone payments which would likely compensate for the same and bring that back up again to 73p.

[nobbygnome] 15/9/2020 09:51

>> s_k

An interesting set of figures most of which I can't dispute. However, having sales in the second half of 2023 is extremely optimistic and will only happen if everything goes exactly to time. As we all know that is extremely unlikely with small companies so my best guess would be H2 2024.

Of course I am pretty sure it will never be on the market because at the current dose it won't work but you know what I mean.

[sicilian_kan] 15/9/2020 09:46

I've done a very conservative NAV calculation. Using the following inputs, the current discounted share price should be 73p, based on Lupuzor alone, with significant rises above as we get closer, if the P3 trial is successful, potential for sales beyond 2027 etc. Here are the inputs:

- 200,000 treatable US patients
- 100,000 treatable EU patients
- Market share of 5% rising incrementally to 25% peak market share in 2027
- 55% chance of passing P3
- US royalties of 10% rising to 17%
- I've ignored milestones but this will add more into the mix if successful
- EU share of revenues 55% after farming out the sales on distribution licence
- First sales H2 2023
- Final sales taken into account 2027
- Price when launched of $20,000
- Application of French tax rates on profits
- Discount rate 10%
- Working capital requirements per year as current, increasing 10% per year
- Current cash plus likely Lanstead receipts

Note this ignores the whole of the rest of the pipeline as well as well as all other potential indications for Lupuzor.

[abbynat] 11/9/2020 21:17

poss too late. byotrol already exploded few weeks ago after d.mail tip.
although, their results are due soon and could be good.

[hodhasharon] 11/9/2020 15:09

BYOT anyone? Looks set to explode, wouldn't mind a view from a holder before jumping in.

[sicilian_kan] 11/9/2020 15:04

Hi Divmad, yes I am holding at an average of 12.6p. Will put more on re my target valuations at some point this weekend. Best wishes, s_k

[njb67] 10/9/2020 14:05

half - the company could issue an update, especially if the delay is going to be material. I know that FDA commented a few months ago that they would be unable to maintain normal service levels during the pandemic but do not know if/how this is specifically impacting SPA applications. We are seeing similar issues at other national agencies, especially where committee work is undertaken by practising clinicians.

Something that gets over-looked on this board at times - we had similar discussions when the results were due - is that companies do not necessarily make public information they receive at the first possible opportunity. They will need time to review documents, potentially seek clarifications etc. and then decide how they wish to proceed. Clearly, they have both a commercial and at times regulatory imperative to update investors of significant business issues in a timely manner. This does not though mean that same day. As an example I have recently seen clinical trial data that will be announced at an upcoming international congress. The company have chosen the timing and where they will make this information public.

[mcrudden] 10/9/2020 13:48

That's my thinking and would be surprised if it's not "in the bag" Loaded earlier in the week and waiting.

[corby 04] 10/9/2020 11:29

Very interesting the conversions at this time - even if they were 10% in doubt about the SPA they would not convert in the current climate.Why convert now when you could wait and see risk free? the plot thickens :-)

[dope007] 10/9/2020 11:16

Just bought in on Spread bet for what seems to be a binary bet on this RNS you are all expecting