ENDP
#So in terms of the changes in the business going into 2016, this is really not out about cost reduction.
It's really about optimizing and expanding to support the launch of BELBUCA, so we really are in growth mode in our branded business from that standpoint.
With respect to the smaller transactions, what I would say is that each of these transactions need to be viewed in the context of the circumstances under which they were done, and what the facts are today.
So for example, we see at the time where we have a lot of excess capacity in our pain sales force, it's a nice tuck in, and I would say in terms the contribution that's made, it is in line with what we would expect.
Are we thrilled about this performance and is it going to be a huge growth driver going forward.
Absolutely not, but at the time we did it, it filled a very important need for us.
NATESTO is a novel delivery system and at a point in time when we thought that the gel market would recover quickly.
It seemed to be a good opportunity, and it might still be a great product.
However what I would say is that for us to maintain a retail urology field force just to support NATESTO is not viable.
It would have been viable only if STENDRA also was performing well, which is why we are taking action on NATESTO, so really it's not a reflection on our view on that product itself.
It's really more about the viability of maintaining a field force just for that product.
Thanks, <UNK>.
So I will repeat the answer I gave on the share repurchase, which is that it is within the various levels that we have.
We have an active and ongoing discussion with our Board in terms of how we allocate capital, so I'm not necessarily ruling out share repurchase, all I'm stating is that in a market like this, we need to keep our head on straight, and we have a lot of resources at hand and assets that are growing.
And we also need to be mindful that we want to keep paying down on debt.
Right.
And that there are many targets around us, but it's the smaller ones that are becoming much more within range, and I think that leads to my answer to your question, which is that in the very near term, we are going to continue to be focused on smaller transactions that we can do on an all-cash basis.
Obviously at this level, we've been very prudent about how we think about using our equity.
At the same time, we are also open to the concept of doing larger, more transformative transactions where it is not so much the value of the equity, but rather the relative valuation that might actually come into play, right.
So it's in that sense ---+ we continue to see opportunities.
We're also going to be patient in terms of how we evaluate opportunities, but you can be certain that we are very active ongoing dialogue with our Board about how we allocate our capital.
<UNK>.
Sure.
It's a hard question to answer because the majority of our portfolio are Paragraph IV, so we're tied into the 30 month stay, and if you go to an appeal process, you're out 4 to 5 years.
I would say when I look at the real answer to the question are we getting our timelines, when we have our earliest entry, I would say yes.
So I'm not seeing, generally speaking, a backlog on the Par portfolio.
So with that, the Paragraph IV timeline is what allows us to catch up when we are in a situation.
I've got ---+ I'm not going to say that's across the board on every product, but we have a small percentage of products to get backlog, but the vast majority, we hit our timelines based upon a 30 month stay.
So just to be clear <UNK>, we will continue to invest in the long-acting testosterone space which is TESTOPEL and AVEED.
And AVEED is finally kicking in, in terms of its launch trajectory, and TESTOPEL, we believe is going to recover.
So we do think that there is a nice runway for the long-acting testosterones.
In terms of oral therapies, it's entirely possible that there would be a change in this marketplace one day, when there's a viable oral therapy.
The question is, will there be one and when.
Maybe, <UNK>, you can comment on that.
I really don't have anything to add.
I think it comes down to product differentiation and as <UNK>iv says, if there's a truly differentiated product that has an acceptable safety and efficacy profile, it has the potential to perform well, but again, you have to look at the gel market, which has been declining significantly over the last couple of years and that's led us to refocus into the area that we think gives the most compelling opportunity for growth, and we will continue to support those products very strongly, both of which are in our specialty business.
And as we've said, we will be stepping up our investment overall in that business.
Yes so on the question on specialty pharmacy, I really can't comment on other companies' use of specialty pharmacy.
All I can say is they are a very valuable channel for us, in terms of reaching the physicians that we need to with our physician-administered products in particular, and it's a very important role for patients who rely on those physicians.
I would also say there's a big and growing portion of our business that is buy and bill, which is largely speaking, a service by specialty distributors, who are of course different than specialty pharmacies.
And again, we think it's a very important channel for us to be able to serve the needs of the physicians who rely on the buy and bill channel.
So from that standpoint we continue to think that they're an appropriate vehicle for our products that they are more complex, have a more complicated supply chain, and are physician administered.
In terms of your question on the reprioritization and how we think about those assets, it's important to know on both STENDRA as well as NATESTO, we are partners, so you can imagine that we are in active discussions and will be in active discussions with those partners, in terms of finding the appropriate promotional setting for the products, and if that means the product needs to be in someone else's hands, we are very open to that, as well.
Operator, I think we have time for maybe one more question.
<UNK>, do you have perspective on that.
Sure.
So yes, I mean with OPANA ER, the agency, as I think we've spoken about before, did ask us to do some abuse liability trials, which were in vivo and in patients.
On BELBUCA in terms of ADF, we currently are not contemplating that, although we will watch ---+ remember buprenorphine in its own as a molecule is inherently less prone to abuse because of the lack of euphoria, and we see this across the existing products.
And that, coupled with the dosage formulation, we think gives it a differentiation based on that, but we don't plant to actively promote on that.
We think that the efficacy and safety profile differentiates the product very well.
Thank you, operator, and thank you all for joining us for today's call.
