They're providing a value for money and
it's something that they've talked about for a while now in their calls.
Now, the reason why these are easier to produce is, you know, the fill in finish
capacity to the capacity needed to actually put the drug in the pens and
the capacity needed to manufacture the pens and the subcutaneous injection.
So overall, I think the move is, you know, positive for Lilly clearly
broadens access or patients access to that bound.
And also from, you know, compounding pharmacy standpoint, the fact that it
improves supply means it could possibly combat, you know, competition from, you
know, companies such as hims, hims and hers.
Yeah. Lilly not so subtly saying that they
want to aim to protect patients from, quote, counterfeit, fake, unsafe or
untested knockoffs. So how does that impact kind of the
business in demand if we're seeing cheaper version being sold and maybe
trying to court some of those hims and hers GLP one users, how does
that impact kind of the total addressable market and expectations for
sales of ZAP out? I think if there's, you know, there's a
branded file formulation out there and there's obviously guarantees around kind
of purity, etc., I think that's going to be the preferred choice.
The fact that you're introducing these veils into the market would suggest
that, you know, some of that supply burden and supply shortage, which is
needed for a compounding pharmacy to produce a drug
that is on pattern. You know, some of that will be
alleviated there. So that's kind of why we think it's
positive for Lilly as to whether, you know, companies like him and hers will
continue producing, you know, their versions of the GOP ones.
I mean, that remains to be seen. But I imagine if they do, you know,
Lilly would probably challenge it when people then do their own shots, like
administer it like, is there a risk in that?
Like, well, what kind of uptake are we expecting from that?
Because I, I would be scared to do it, but maybe that's just me.
I mean, I think judging by, you know, what we saw for uptake of these
compounded drugs, there's clearly a appetite for injectable therapy
injections. Now, you know, we looked at the diabetes
market. You know, some of the instances used to
be injections. So, I mean, I think it's not I mean,
there's clearly kind of an increased kind of dosing burden associated with
these injections. So they're probably not going to be
suitable for all. But, you know, I think there is going to
be an appetite for it. What does this mean for the competitive
landscape? So you have Lilly, you have novo to your
point, you have hims and hers. Like, is this going to create a pricing
war? Am I reading too much into that?
I mean, when we look at the I mean, the headline said 50% discount.
But we need to remember that, you know, on a net price basis.
So, you know, after taking out all the rebates and discounts, you know, pricing
is probably, you know, fairly similar to the current net prices that we're seeing
now at the moment.
You know, it's an under-penetrated market.
You know, there's massive demand out there.
There's tight supply. So I don't think it's going to change
too much in terms of the dynamics between, you know, Novo and Lilly, I
think. I think prescribing decisions are, you
know, less about kind of the profiles of the drug at the moment and more about,
you know, what is insured, what can people get their hands on?
Yeah. So near-term, I don't see that that
changing from a Lilly perspective as they ramp up supply over that over the
mid-term of their, you know, their pens.
You know, you could potentially see patients switching from the injectable
onto the pen as and when that supply comes, what comes on board.