Biotech - KOL Takeaways from our conversation with Dr. Brian Carney: the PV Edition

Research evidence excerpt

Biotech - KOL Takeaways from our conversation with Dr. Brian Carney: the PV Edition

d to a more conservative assessment of uptake;

KOL estimated actual uptake to be less than 1/3 of all eligible patients (<25% all low-

risk pts). When asked about how he would treat within his own practice, Dr. Carney

estimated that 10-15% of his patients (majority low risk as high risk would be ineligible for

VERIFY) would be immediate candidates for a weekly subQ injection, with half (7-8%)

of those being truly PHL-intolerant and the others would have significant symptoms

after PHL.

What would payer mgmt of rusfertide look like? Dr. Carney anticipates that

payers will manage rusfertide aggressively, likely requiring step thru from PHL or

significant post-procedure symptoms before approval. PHL intolerance currently is

easily managed with payers as per Dr. Carney's experience with Besremi, but he

could anticipate needing to provide documentation of PHL and what happens after as

a potential requirement. To improve acceptance of rusfertide, Dr. Carney highlighted

that showing a demonstrable reduction in thrombotic rate could be doable with a large

enough cohort and highlighted rusfertide's ability to show this with more consistent

Hct<45% vs PHL.

What is exciting in the PV landscape? While rusfertide has first-mover advantage,

Silence's (SLN, NR) divesiran (TMPRSS6) represents a major threat due to its Q6–

Q12W dosing scheme, which Dr. Carney thinks would be significantly better than

weekly injections. Dr. Carney noted that divesiran's response rates appear comparable

to rusfertide's (as per SANRECO vs VERIFY, caveat small sample size (n=21) in

SANRECO), potentially making it the preferred choice for patients who are injection-

averse. Dr.