Jack Khattar
Chief Executive Officer
Regarding the first question as far as Qelbree. You may recall and some folks on the call might recall, when Strattera first launched, they actually reached up to about 19%, if I'm not mistaken, market share penetration of the whole ADHD market. And they did that fairly quickly because they were the first non-stimulant product to ever enter the marketplace. Before that, it was always stimulants and the only products available that controlled substances. But then the changes in the label came on board. People started getting also a little bit disappointment as far as the performance of the product, how quickly it works and so forth. And the product settled somewhere in the -- from a market share perspective, somewhere around the 7%, 6%, give or take that's where it really ended up settling. Intuniv also when they launched, they peaked somewhere in the 4% to 5%. And that's why actually the whole category ended up being around the 10% of the ADHD market. What we hope to accomplish with Qelbree is hopefully perform way better than where Strattera and Intuniv have settled as far as the market share. And we're starting to see some of the early signs actually that Qelbree is not being reserved only for use for people who are dissatisfied with nonstimulants. Actually, some physicians are using it on a lot of patients who are on stimulants and dissatisfied with the stimulants, or where the parents don't want to give their kids stimulants or controlled substances or products that could be abused. And we're very encouraged with that, especially early on because, of course, the easy positioning that physicians could see this or the perception would be -- well, let me see, I'll just put patients who are on nonstimulants today and they're not happy, we'll let them try Qelbree. That is not what's happening in the marketplace. So it's very encouraging. The initial size that we've seen as far as the patient profile on which the product is being used and adopted. So that will tell us that eventually, if our strategy is successful and the product continues to perform, there is no reason for the market to be split up 90% stimulants and 10% nonstimulants. Because I'm always a believer and I always talk about the fact and I talk about it from our experience in the category, but also as a parent myself. There is no reason for a parent to put their kid on a stimulant on a controlled substance if they have another option that really works, works well, works early and is safe and powerful. And to me, as a parent that's a no-brainer. I mean that's a decision I will make every day and give my kid the chance to take a nonstimulant that could work really quickly, which we are seeing in the marketplace, in line with what we saw in our Phase III and the clinical data. Safe, tolerable, I mean, discontinuation rates in our Phase III studies are in the 2% to 3%, and very tolerable drug and very easy to take. It's easy for the parents with the refills and all these issues and it's also easier for the physicians. If you really think about these physicians who prescribe heavily. For them, it's a huge amount of work for them to do the refills every single month for every patient they have on the stimulant medications. So all in all, I sure hope and we definitely are targeting to be much bigger than what Strattera did. On the second question regarding the pump. I mean, as far as some people sensing that we are a little bit more conservative regarding the potential of the pump. I mean, we did mention that in Europe, for example, on a unit basis, the pump sells about -- it's a multiple fold of what the Apokyn Pen sells in Europe. So certainly, there is an example where the pump could outperform the injection, single injection pen. But every market is different clearly. The reimbursement, the coverage here in the US is a little bit different than in Europe. And that's why we took a little bit more conservative stance on it. And when we made the acquisition, we mentioned somewhere about 125 to 175 as peak sales. Is there a possibility we could easily beat these numbers? Absolutely. I mean that is a possibility. We believe that could be easily achieved. But again, we need to see the label. We need to see where the product ends up as far as the actual indication. And therefore, from there, how can we position the pump because the need is there, no question about it. The big question is how wide of a window is it going to be? In other words, is it going to be applicable to patients who are only severe patients, patients who are moderate and severe. And therefore, is it across Stage 4 and 5 of the disease or is it across Stage 3, 4 and 5 and so forth. So it heavily depends on the label and where we end up with the product. So that's why we've taken so far a more cautious approach. But it's a great product and that's one of the major reasons why we made the acquisition is because we believe that's a great growth driver for us in the future. And then the last question on the business development. Absolutely, as I made a remark in my prepared remarks, we continue to look at different opportunities. We will reload the balance sheet, so to speak. The business on its own continue and will continue to generate even more cash flows next year, reloading our balance sheet. And therefore, we will continue to look at opportunities, whether it's on the licensing side or product acquisitions or company acquisitions. I mean, for the appropriate opportunity, we could also potentially raise more money to do the right transaction.