|
|
|
|
||
Beauregard makes the effortbeauregard · @beauregard2 17th Sep 2019 from TwitLonger https://twitter.com/beauregard2/status/1173950620849573889 Just did a deep dive into recent $SRPT analyst reports. Here are some takeaways: 1) While the rejection of golodirsen based on renal toxicity at 10x the actual dose was ridiculous, it is nice to see that Casimersin did not see similar toxicity even at 10x. In fact, in preclinical studies, Casimersen was tested up until 900mg/kg (or 30x human dose). 2. As far as Golodirsen being tainted with the sins of other unrelated anti-sense oligonucleotides having renal tox, some analysts think the "other ASOs" with renal tox refers to (long dead) drisapersen, others think it refers to NS-065, the exon-53 skipper from NS-Pharma, which has seen proteinuria, albuminuria, and anemia, among other AEs. The latter was revealed in a medical journal. In my mind, NS-065's issues were not serious enough to prevent approval, but who knows what the golodirsen precedent means? 3. Speaking of golodirsen precedent, basically every analyst sees it as absurd and based on one FDA officer's desire to punish SRPT (for, I suppose, the sin of having applied for eteplirsen approval). 4. Cowen was the most hopeful on golodirsen: "SRPT could address the current renal tox concerns with current clinical and preclinical dataset. At worst, we think an expanded open-label safety database with the 30mg/kg could be required." I can't handicap the accuracy of that thinking. 5. Minutes of the SRPT/FDA meeting on Golodirsen should be out in early December (FDA must hold meeting 30 days after request and send minutes 30 days after that). 6. Interestingly, I don't recall a single analyst mentioning MPS or CMT GT programs, even though we know they've dosed at least 7 patients for MPS already. Moreover, almost no analyst mentions LGMD, despite the program being quite advanced in trials. Most ignore LGMD and the upcoming data when listing catalysts, and they don't make a serious effort to include it in revenue estimates, if at all. 7. When modeling DMD GT (the only one the analysts even acknowledge), analysts universally ignore the recent release of weak results by Pfizer's competitive program. They continue to see Pfizer's program as just as good, with the only differentiator being time to market. This is flat wrong, as anyone who has compared the results of the trials can attest. 8. As a consequence of (7) above, analysts continue to underestimate SRPT's potential market share in DMD GT. 9. Even underestimating SRPT market share, the company is severely undervalued relative to peers. For example, Evercore uses very pessimistic assumptions (47% of DMD GT going to non-working programs from Pfizer and Solid, essentially nothing for LGMD or non-ambulatory DMD) to come up with its revenue estimates. However, even based on those pessimistic revenue estimates, SRPT only trades at 1.8 x 2024 revenues, vs an average of 3.4x for other data-phase companies (ALNY, IONS, DRNA, PRDR, etc), or 3.8x for revenue-phase companies (VRTX, REGN, ALXN, INCY, BMRN, NBIX). So SPRT is 50% undervalued, even based on a pessimistic case. |
return to message board, top of board |