Carl W. Hull
Analyst · Piper Jaffray. Sir, your line is open
Thanks Hank, and good afternoon, everyone. I'm going to review our product sales performance in the third quarter, and report on the status of ULTRIO in the United States. Product sales were $108.3 million in the quarter, representing solid growth of 11% compared to last year. Both our clinical diagnostics and blood screening businesses were healthy. Clinical diagnostic sales were $55.5 million, 7% higher than in the prior year period. It's important to remember that in the third quarter of last year, we recorded approximately $3 million of incremental one-time instrument sales to clinical diagnostic customers. We said at the time that this was a very unusual event and in fact it has not recurred. If we strip this $3 million out of the prior year period, clinical diagnostic sales would have grown between 13% and 14%, consistent with the second quarter rate and much more reflective of the strong underlying demand we see in the marketplace for our products. We were extremely pleased with the growth of our APTIMA franchise in the third quarter, and thus far, we're having an excellent October as well. We continue to follow a winning playbook with APTIMA. First, grow the market by leveraging our automated TIGRIS platform, and by facilitating and testing from new non-invasive sample types. Second, convert customers from the non-amplified PACE product line to APTIMA COMBO 2. And third, gain market share versus our competitors through our differentiated and unique product offering. To provide you a little more detail on the success of these strategies, let me mention that we added another dozen competitive accounts in the third quarter, an impressive performance against formidable competitors. It's interesting that the majority of these competitive wins came on our semi-automated DTS systems, not on our TIGRIS platform. At this point, we know that TIGRIS provides tremendous advantages for our high volume customers, but this quarter's performance demonstrates that we can also take share among the lower volume customers with our semi-automated systems, based largely on the superior sensitivity, specificity and versatility of our assays. In addition, within the Gen-Probe product family, customers continue to upgrade to APTIMA from PACE, sales of which were down 18% compared to last year, as expected. In the third quarter, almost 88% of our STD revenue came from our APTIMA product line, but approximately 28% of our unit volume remains with PACE. So we continue to see opportunities for conversion to the higher priced assay. Before I leave clinical diagnostics, let me mention that we recently completed our annual scrubbing of our STD market share estimates and we were pleased with what we saw. Specifically, we estimate that by year-end we will have slightly more than a 60% share of the $276 million US STD market, with the good news being that the market is a little bit bigger than we previously expected. And a bigger market means even more potential sales for us. Now let me turn to blood screening, where quarterly sales grew to $52.7 million, a healthy 16% compared to last year. In the United States, we and our partner Novartis, continue to enjoy a leading market share. In the third quarter, we believe domestic sales benefited from the additional shipments of the PROCLEIX ULTRIO assay, and the continuation of our post-marketing yield studies, a portion of which were conducted in pools of eight or in individual donor testing. As we've said before, we expect these customers to revert back to testing in pools of 16, now that our post-marketing studies are completed. Outside the United States, sales of our blood screening products, mainly the ULTRIO assay on the TIGRIS system, continued to grow solidly. Since the prior year period we have picked up significant new business in Italy, Lithuania and Slovenia, among others. Based on these growing international sales, we estimate that foreign exchange benefits added about $1.8 million to blood screening revenues in the third quarter of 2008. However, given the recent strengthening of the dollar, we are currently estimating that foreign exchange will become a headwind as we move into 2009, potentially dampening blood screening sales growth by a few million dollars over the course of the next year. Getting back to the third quarter, sales of our West Nile Virus assay were essentially flat compared to the prior year period, as expected. As we said in our last call, we are facing tougher comps now that we have annualized the pricing benefit associated with the early 2007 approval of that assay to run on the TIGRIS system. In addition, you may have read that this year's West Nile Virus season was not as severe as many experts predicted in some parts of the country. As a result, we believe blood banks did less individual donor testing than expected this summer and therefore consumed fewer tests, despite the more stringent trigger mechanisms that many customers adopted in response to draft FDA and AABB guidelines. As we mentioned earlier this year, we think our partner at Novartis, appropriately stocked up on their West Nile Virus orders in anticipation of these new guidelines. But since the amount of IDT testing was ultimately less than had been expected, we estimate Novartis is now holding more inventory than needed over the near term. We believe they will gradually draw down this inventory to normal levels over the next several quarters, reducing overall West Nile Virus sales by an aggregate of a few million dollars in the process. As a final note, TIGRIS related sales to Novartis were 2.8 million in the third quarter, down slightly compared to the prior year period, as anticipated. Going forward, we maintain our previous guidance that quarterly instrument sales will continue to decline based mainly on the larger number of TIGRIS systems that Novartis has already been successful placing worldwide. So in summary, our blood screening business performed well in the third quarter, with sales increasing 16% as we built on our leading market position around the world. Now I would like to turn to a future potential growth driver, our PROCLEIX ULTRIO assay in the United States. We're aware that this is a hot topic among our investors and analysts. Let me begin by saying that Novartis' negotiations with US customers are active and ongoing as we speak. Our current understanding, however, is that no formal contracts have yet been signed with customers. As a reminder, Novartis is responsible for marketing in our blood screening collaboration, so they handle the commercial discussions, not us. We do understand that customers are pushing back on the incremental price premium for ULTRIO. This is typical and to be expected. And we think it is occurring for two main reasons. First, blood banks across the country are struggling financially, compounded by the fact that many have recently increased their testing costs by implementing new serology testing for Chagas disease. And second, molecular testing for HPV is not currently mandated by the FDA. We believe, however, that a mandate should eventually be, based in part on the excellent results we saw on our post-marketing yield studies. Our study results send a very clear message; if you use molecular tests to screen the US blood supply for HPV, you will find contaminated donations that other tests miss. More importantly, the converse is also true. If you're not using a NAT test, you may be allowing HPV infected blood donations to be transfused. Given the history of blood banking, we do not believe that this is something that regulators or the public will be willing to countenance, especially if it means having a dual standard of blood safety, with some customers doing molecular HPV testing, and others relying on less sensitive, serology screening alone. But at this point, we do not know what the final commercial pricing for the ULTRIO assay will be, or what the rate of adoption will be, and I don't want to compromise sensitive commercial negotiations with anything I say today. We'll keep you informed as we learn the results of the negotiations. One thing I can speak to today, is the clinical value of molecular blood testing for HPV, which was clearly demonstrated through our post-marketing studies, the key results of which were presented recently at the American Association of Blood Banks meeting in Montreal. Let me give you some highlights of two of the largest and most complex and most successful clinical trials ever conducted in the blood banking industry. Our ULTRIO assay was used to screen 3.7 million blood donations in the two studies combined. Approximately 54% of the donations were tested in pools of 16 donations, 30% were tested in pools of eight donations, and 16% were tested individually. Our test intercepted eight confirmed cases of Hepatitis B yield, meaning these HBV infected donations were missed by all serology screening. Five yields were detected in pools of 16, two in pools of eight, and only one in IDT, indicating the value of ULTRIO, regardless of pool size. Seven of these eight confirmed yields were missed by Abbott's third generation PRISM assays. Our studies indicate that without molecular testing, as many as 90 individual transfusion recipients could receive infected blood products each year. Many of these people may be immunocompromised, and they could therefore suffer severe clinical consequences. Not only did the ULTRIO assay pick up HBV infected donations, that otherwise would have been transfused, it did so while generating virtually no false positive results. As many of you know, in the blood banking industry, throwing away a scarce unit of blood unnecessarily and losing a future donor through deferral is almost as big a concern as missing an infected donation. With a specificity of greater than 99.9% in both studies, we think our ULTRIO assay performed admirably in this regard as well. Before I turn the call over to Herm, let me mention that over eight yield cases, we now know that four had previously been fully vaccinated for Hepatitis B. This is important for a couple of reasons. First, since the first recombinant HBV vaccine was approved in 1986, more than 30 million adults and 40 million infants and children have been inoculated in the US, and with each passing day, these vaccinees comprise a larger portion of the blood donor pool. The second reason is scientifically complex, but very important to understand. The purpose of the HBV [ph] vaccine, like any vaccination, is to stimulate an immune response that protects against future infection. Given the size of our post-marketing studies, however, we have seen for the first time, evidence that HBV vaccination can have unintended consequences, that could reduce the safety of the blood supply from previously assumed levels. Specifically, in some people the vaccine stimulated immune response fights HBV only partially, so that a very low rate of viral replication occurs, and the traditional serological markers of infection, such as Hepatitis B surface antigen, take longer to reach detectable levels. In other words, when a vaccinated person becomes infected with HBV, the virus remains in his or her bloodstream at low levels and stays there for longer periods than in an unvaccinated person. So in the absence of molecular testing for HBV, a donation from this person could still be transfused, since traditional tests would come back negative. And if this blood were transfused into an immunocompromised person, say someone undergoing chemotherapy, serious clinical problems could result. In scientific terms, this means that HBV infected blood donors who have been previously vaccinated may have longer seroconversion windows. If so, direct detection through molecular testing becomes that much more valuable since its main purpose is to shorten the window period, by detecting HBV directly rather than waiting for normal disease progression and the body's immune response. I should mention that this is a new area of scientific discovery and is therefore controversial in some respects. For example, it's unclear what portion of HBV vaccines, who later get infected, show a long seroconversion window. And some scientists have questioned whether acute Hepatitis B infections in these vaccinated donors would be infectious enough to be transmissible through a blood transfusion. More studies need to be done in this regard. In fact, an important long term study was coincidentally published just days ago in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. The paper showed that as many as half of people who are vaccinated against Hepatitis B, at birth, showed waning immunity 15 years later. This finding dovetails logically with what we saw in our post-marketing studies. Clearly, the scientific data will emerge and broaden with time. But in the meantime and from a practical perspective, we doubt that many intuitions would be willing to assume the risk associated with knowing a blood donation is HBV positive, yet allowing it to be transfused anyway. So in summary, our ULTRIO post-marketing studies were extremely successful. They confirmed that ULTRIO does exactly what it was designed to do, and maybe even more. In addition, they opened up in treating new issues in transfusion medicine. Based on this, we expect that over time and especially with the benefit of potential regulatory guidelines, ULTRIO will be widely used to protect the blood supply in the United States, as it is overseas today. After all, we wouldn't want our blood supply to be screened less stringently than it is in many European, Asian and African countries. Now I'll turn the call over to Herm for our financials.