Akebia (AKBA) 2026年第三季財報電話會議：Vafseo 需求、定價及 TDAPA 過渡

Akebia Therapeutics (NASDAQ: AKBA) 2026 年第三季財報顯示，儘管使用 Vafseo 的患者人數增加，但受洗腎診所庫存去化影響，財報營收有所下滑。由於 Auryxia 面臨學名藥競爭，整體營收出現衰退，而管理層的焦點則放在 Vafseo 於 2027 年 1 月結束 TDAPA 補助後的過渡階段。

重點摘要

• 總營收從 2025 年第三季的 5,880 萬美元降至 3,690 萬美元，主因是 Auryxia 銷售額下滑。
• 儘管接受治療的患者人數年增約 140%，Vafseo 產品淨營收僅年增 3% 至 1,480 萬美元。管理層將此落差歸因於平均劑量偏低以及洗腎次數少於預期，進而導致庫存去化。
• 管理層估計，第三季 Vafseo 的終端實質需求為 1,900 萬至 2,000 萬美元，相較之下，財報營收為 1,480 萬美元，第二季預估需求則為 1,700 萬至 1,800 萬美元。
• 約有 11,500 名患者正在接受 Vafseo 治療，約占 U.S. Renal Care、Dialysis Clinic Inc. 與 Innovative Renal Care 所治療貧血患者的 20%。先前中斷治療的患者中，約有 25% 已重新開始用藥。
• VOICE 試驗結果顯示，使用 vadadustat 的住院次數比使用 ESA 減少 10%，死亡率則無顯著差異。這項涵蓋 2,116 名患者的研究達到了預設的終止標準，勝算比（win odds）為 1.16，p 值為 0.0016。
• 截至季末，現金及現金等價物總額為 1.593 億美元。Akebia 表示，現有資金、預期營收流以及計劃中的定期貸款再融資，應足以支應其目前的營運計畫至少兩年。

核心財務數據

業務與營運表現

Vafseo 實質需求超越財報營收

管理層表示，其最大客戶最初預估每次洗腎治療的 Vafseo 平均劑量為 900 毫克，但實際使用量平均約為 810 毫克。此外，患者每月進行透析的次數約為 10.5 至 11 次，低於醫療機構預期的約 12 次。

由於在部分診所中，Vafseo 是在醫護監督下給藥，因此未到診洗腎會減少藥品用量。劑量較低加上出席率偏低，導致診所庫存過剩，並減少了第三季的客戶採購量。管理層估計，診所在該季度去化了約 400 萬至 500 萬美元的庫存。

在 Vafseo 於 2027 年 1 月 1 日 TDAPA 補助到期之前，預計將會出現進一步的庫存去化，因為醫療機構會避免持有到期前以較高價格採購的藥品。

後 TDAPA 策略核心：擴大涵蓋範圍與向 ESA 看齊的定價策略

在 TDAPA 到期後，Vafseo 將納入洗腎包裹式給付中，不再單獨計費。管理層表示，這應能將用藥範圍從符合 TDAPA 資格的患者，擴大至幾乎所有符合臨床用藥資格的患者。

Akebia 預期 Vafseo 治療的年均費用將落在 1,000 至 1,500 美元之間，反映了 ESA 價格下跌、較低的平均劑量、透析出席率以及以量計價的定價模式。管理層表示，若 Vafseo 成為標準療法，治療至少 20 萬至 25 萬名患者可支撐數億美元的營收高峰。

Akebia 指出，DaVita 已簽訂涵蓋至 2027 年的後 TDAPA 合約，並已提出展延多年的請求。管理層預期 2026 年第四季將開始小幅推展，隨後在 2027 年初迎來更顯著的擴張。費森尤斯亦對 VOICE 試驗數據表現出興趣，不過管理層預期該機構的採用過程需要更長時間。

臨床證據支持商業化前景

在 VOICE 試驗中，vadadustat 經暴露調整後的嚴重不良事件為每 100 病患年 121.5 起，相較之下 ESA 為 134.2 起。此外在一項探索性終點中，vadadustat 也展現出更穩定的血紅素控制，且血紅素過高的波動情況較少。

在美國腎臟醫學會（ASN）上發表的 INNO2VATE 最新經濟學分析指出，相較於 ESA，Vafseo 每年每位患者可減少 6,200 美元的住院成本。根據該分析假設，若治療所有符合條件的透析貧血患者，可減少超過 60 萬天的住院天數。

Akebia 亦公布了 VOCAL 試驗正面的初步重點數據。這項於 DaVita 診所進行的研究顯示，每週給藥三次的 vadadustat 在維持血紅素方面不劣於 ESA 療法。後續分析將進一步評估血紅素穩定性、輸血情況、救援療法以及紅血球特性。

罕見腎臟疾病產品線進展

Akebia 目前正在進行 praliciguat 治療局灶節段性腎絲球硬化症的二期試驗招募，以及 ebribafusp 涵蓋 C3 腎病變、IgA 腎病變和狼瘡性腎炎的籃型試驗。ebribafusp 的初步數據預計將於 2027 年出爐。

ebribafusp 試驗將主要評估尿蛋白與肌酸酐比值的降低程度、腎功能穩定性以及補體生物標記。Akebia 的目標是證明該藥物在腎臟層面具有活性，且不會引起補體替代路徑的全身性抑制，管理層認為這是一項潛在的安全性差異化優勢。

管理層展望

• 管理層預期 2026 年第四季 Vafseo 的用藥患者人數將持續成長，主要由 U.S. Renal Care、Innovative Renal Care 以及 Dialysis Clinic Inc. 帶動。
• 在 TDAPA 到期前，受客戶保守管理庫存的影響，第四季財報營收可能仍會受到壓抑。
• 預計 DaVita 將於第四季展開小規模推廣，並可望於 2027 年初迎來更大幅度的擴張。
• 受學名藥競爭與價格承壓影響，預計 Auryxia 營收與 2025 年相比將持續下滑。
• ebribafusp 二期籃型試驗的初步數據預計於 2027 年公布。Akebia 未提供 praliciguat 數據的最新時程。

風險與關注焦點

• 隨著醫療機構針對實際給藥劑量、透析出席率以及 TDAPA 補助結束而調整庫存，Vafseo 營收與患者成長趨勢可能仍會存在分歧。
• ESA 價格下滑正在對 Vafseo 後 TDAPA 時期的定價構成壓力，同時預期銷量增加也將拉低平均售價。
• 大型透析機構的採用速度慢於管理層預期。DaVita 正謹慎推展，而費森尤斯因組織調整可能需要更多時間。
• 將患者從 ESA 轉換至 Vafseo 需要在各洗腎中心進行臨床教育與營運執行。
• Auryxia 持續面臨學名藥競爭與價格壓力。
• Akebia 所述的兩年資金展望，涵蓋了其針對優先擔保定期貸款進行再融資的計畫。

分析師問答集錦

大型透析機構採用情況：管理層認為 DaVita 提出展延多年合約的請求是一項正面訊號，但並未具體說明推廣計畫的規模。中型透析機構的執業醫師與 DaVita 約有三分之一重疊，若計入費森尤斯則重疊超過 50%，這有助於在不同醫療機構間轉移 Vafseo 的用藥經驗。

VOCAL 試驗與給藥策略：Akebia 仍在分析 VOCAL 數據，並將評估該研究結果如何為每週給藥三次的監管策略提供依據。公司尚未提供與仿單相關的時程。

Ebribafusp 差異化優勢：該公司致力於在不引起補體替代路徑全身性抑制的情況下，達到降低蛋白尿與穩定腎功能的效果。目前 ebribafusp 採每週一次皮下注射給藥，不過管理層表示後續可評估降低給藥頻率的可行性。

住院經濟效益：管理層表示，較低的住院率有助於透析機構在價值導向醫療合約下獲益。然而，採購決策對取得成本依然高度敏感。

完整法說會逐字稿

---

完整財報電話會議逐字稿

管理層陳述

Operator

[Operator Instructions] Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to your first speaker today, Mercedes Carrasco, Senior Director, IR. May we begin?

Mercedes Carrasco

Thank you and welcome to Akebia's third quarter 2026 financial results and business updates conference call. Please note that a press release was issued earlier today, Thursday, November 5th, detailing our third quarter 2026 financial results. And that release is available on the Investor section of our website. For your convenience, a replay of today's call will also be available on our website after we conclude. Joining me for today's call, John Butler, Chief Executive Officer, and Erik Ostrowski, Chief Financial and Chief Business Officer. Dr. Steven Burke, our Chief Medical Officer, and Nicholas Grund, Chief Commercial Officer, are also available for questions. I'd like to remind everyone that this call includes forward-looking statements.

Each forward-looking statement on this call is subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in these statements. Additional information describing these risks is included in the financial results press release that we issued on November 5th, as well as in the Risk Factors and Management's Discussion and Analysis section of our most recent annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC. With that, I'd like to introduce our CEO, John Butler.

John Butler

Thanks, Mercedes. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. Late last month, Akebia joined our peers at ASN Kidney Week in Denver. I left the event with 2 important takeaways. First, I heard tremendous excitement about the VOICE trial data that Dr. Block of U.S. Renal Care presented. We believe the data, which demonstrated a clear and compelling hospitalization outcomes benefit for vadadustat versus an ESA, dosing a regimen that most dialysis providers have chosen to implement, will have dialysis organizations thinking differently about Vafseo, and over time has the potential to drive Vafseo to become standard of care. Second, the spotlight continues to shine on rare kidney disease therapeutic product development, and we're excited about the potential to show meaningful differentiation with our mid-stage pipeline assets across multiple rare kidney indications.

We believe this would represent significant value for our shareholders. Now with this backdrop, let me walk through Q3, starting with our commercial business. We're pleased with the pace at which we're adding patients from the mid-sized dialysis providers, including USRC, DCI, and IRC. Last quarter, the number of patients on Vafseo increased to about 11,500 patients on therapy, representing about 20% of patients treated for anemia within these 3 dialysis organizations. Also important, 25% of patients that had previously discontinued therapy have restarted. Even with this progress, I believe we have significant room to continue driving growth even within the mid-sized dialysis providers, but obviously and especially at the large dialysis organizations. Vafseo net product revenues were $14.8 million for the quarter.

This is only a 3% increase versus the third quarter of last year, despite approximately 140% growth in the number of patients on therapy. There are a few somewhat related factors at play, but it was predominantly a drawdown of inventory based on a lower dose and dialysis compliance rate. If you recall, we told you that we're no longer getting data on average dose at providers who moved to TIW dosing. When our largest customer looked at their utilization, they adjusted their purchases based on the average dose they were seeing versus what they expected. Our customer made their inventory assumptions expecting an average dose of 900 milligrams per dialysis treatment, but the average was about 810 milligrams. Even more impactful, patients have been less compliant with their dialysis sessions than expected. If a patient doesn't show up for dialysis, the patient doesn't receive a Vafseo dose if the unit is using observed dosing. These 2 factors combined meant that there was more inventory in their clinics at the end of last quarter, which impacted their purchases this quarter.

So to make it very clear, when we use the updated dose and compliance data with the number of patients on therapy, end-user demand was between $17 million and $18 million for Q2 and between $19 million and $20 million for Q3. Another takeaway from my conversations at ASN is that while dialysis providers have protocols in place, as individual physicians start using Vafseo in greater numbers, they're using their own strategies to utilize the product and bring patients into or keep patients in the hemoglobin target range. This shouldn't be surprising. It took 20 years for physicians to figure out how to dose ESAs. It's gratifying to see prescribers recognize the benefits of Vafseo for their patients, though it would be easier for us if their approaches were a little more consistent. Our focus is to continue to drive more patients onto therapy and support physicians as they look for the best outcomes for their patients. Beyond the reduction in inventory based on dose and dialysis compliance, as we approach Vafseo's January 1, 2027 TDAPA expiration, expect a continued reduction in inventory levels. No provider wants drug on the shelf that they bought at a higher price when it no longer gets to bill for that price.

Now, we're working proactively to manage this dynamic. To be clear, for Q4, we expect to see continued growth in patients on therapy. That's the most important metric for the long-term growth of the product. On January 1st, we begin our post-TDAPA launch. On that day, Vafseo access will expand beyond the TDAPA-only patients to nearly all clinically eligible patients. Treatment with Vafseo will be reimbursed as part of the dialysis bundle payment, and dialysis organizations will no longer be able to bill separately when they use the product. As we've always said, post-TDAPA, we will price Vafseo to remain competitive with ESA pricing to ensure providers can access an innovative treatment for patients, even within the economic confines of a bundled payment system.

So what does this mean for pricing in 2027 and beyond? Now while we're still working on some of our post-TDAPA contracts, we know ESA price has decreased over time and now incorporating a somewhat lower dose and dialysis compliance, we expect the average annual cost of therapy to fall somewhere between $1,000 and $1,500. Certainly not the price you would normally expect for a product bringing the level of innovation that Vafseo brings, but these are the dynamics of the dialysis market. If we can make Vafseo standard of care, which means ultimately treating at least 200,000 to 250,000 patients, that would mean a potential multi-hundred-million-dollar peak revenue.

So how are we going to get there? As I said, in Q4, even though we expect our customers to be conservative with inventory, we expect to continue to see an increase in patients. We expect Q4 patient growth will be driven primarily by our current mid-sized dialysis providers, USRC, IRC, and DCI. We share our shareholders' desire to see DaVita and Fresenius begin contributing to our revenue. And while we have a post-TDAPA contract with DaVita through 2027, at their request, we're working on a multi-year extension of that contract. And they've outlined their plans to begin rolling out the product slowly, which we expect to start this quarter, and in a much more significant way early next year.

It's clearly been frustrating for us that adoption among the large dialysis providers has not progressed more quickly. But in the end, it's clinical evidence that changes the way prescribers think about patient care. Let me give you a few highlights from the VOICE data presented by Dr. Block at ASN. The trial enrolled 2,116 patients and met the predefined stopping criteria with a win odds of 1.16 and a p-value of 0.0016, establishing non-inferiority and superiority of the primary composite endpoint due to reduction in hospitalizations. The data demonstrated that hospitalizations were 10% lower in patients treated with vadadustat versus ESAs, without a significant difference in mortality rates.

Exposure-adjusted serious adverse events were lower with vadadustat, with 121.5 events per 100 patient-years, compared to 134.2 events per 100 patient-years for patients treated with ESAs. Given that SAEs generally drive hospitalization, this is not a surprising finding. As we've seen in the past, vadadustat showed more stable hemoglobin control versus ESAs. In an exploratory endpoint, the data showed the odds of high hemoglobin excursions were reduced in patients treated with vadadustat compared to ESAs, while there was no overall difference in low excursions. There has never been an outcome study performed before INNO2VATE that compared treatments for patients with anemia due to CKD that demonstrated an outcomes difference. And recall, like the VOICE primary endpoint, the post hoc win statistics analysis of our INNO2VATE study also demonstrated a statistically significant lower risk of dying or being hospitalized for patients receiving vadadustat versus ESAs. Now the health economic analysis of the VOICE hospitalization benefit will be completed, but we presented an updated economic analysis from INNO2VATE at ASN. This analysis suggested that treatment with Vafseo resulted in a $6,200 lower annual cost of hospitalization per patient compared with ESA.

And based on the assumptions used in the analysis, if all eligible dialysis patients with anemia were treated with Vafseo, it could result in more than 600,000 fewer hospital days versus ESA treatment. We have seen and know that adoption in nephrology, particularly dialysis, moves slowly. But this is the data that gives me the confidence to believe that Vafseo will ultimately become standard of care. This morning we announced positive top-line results from the VOCAL study, which we conducted at DaVita clinics. One more study demonstrating vadadustat dosed TIW is non-inferior to ESA in maintaining hemoglobin. We look forward to continuing the analysis of VOCAL to see what further differentiation we may be able to uncover.

Now, ASN was also a great meeting when considering our rare kidney disease pipeline. A significant part of the meeting agenda was dedicated to advances in treating rare kidney diseases. We presented preclinical data that informed our confidence in praliciguat for FSGS, as well as posters on our Phase II trial designs for both ebribafusp and praliciguat. Additionally, Dr. Jim Tumlin presented to a full house in an exhibitor spotlight, focusing on both Prali and Ebri. I was pleased with the interest in both programs from the interactions the team had with investigators and potential investigators. As you know, both programs are enrolling their Phase II trials, Prali in FSGS, and Ebri in a basket trial in C3G, IgAN, and lupus nephritis, with initial data from the Ebri trial expected in 2027.

We're excited about the opportunity for both products, but particularly with Ebri, our tissue-targeted next-generation complement inhibitor. While data will obviously help define our strategy and development priorities, we believe a differentiated approach will allow for strong positioning with the potential for similar efficacy, a potentially better safety profile, and potentially less frequent dosing regimen versus current products in diseases like C3G. We believe there's tremendous value in our pipeline that is underappreciated or ignored in Akebia's value today. Now let me turn it over to Erik to review our third quarter financial results.

John Butler

Thanks, John. Total revenues decreased to $36.9 million in Q3 '26 from $58.8 million in Q3 '25. Turning to the components of these amounts, Vafseo net product revenues increased to $14.8 million in Q3 '26 as compared to $14.3 million in Q3 '25. And Auryxia net product revenues decreased to $20 million in Q3 '26 compared to $42.5 million in Q3 '25. We continue to expect Auryxia revenues to decrease as compared to 2025 due to generic competition and pricing pressure. License, collaboration, and other revenues increased slightly to $2.1 million in Q3 '26 as compared to $2 million in Q3 '25.

Turning to expenses, cost of goods sold was $6.4 million in Q3 '26 compared to $9.4 million in Q3 '25, driven by lower product revenues. R&D expenses increased to $16.2 million in Q3 '26 from $14.9 million in Q3 '25, driven by increased clinical trial activities related to our Phase II trials evaluating Ebri and praliciguat. SG&A expenses decreased to $23.5 million in Q3 '26 from $29.1 million in Q3 '25, driven by lower marketing and headcount-related expenses.

We generated a net loss of $14.4 million in Q3 '26 versus net income of $0.5 million in Q3 '25, driven by this quarter's lower revenues, which was partially offset by lower operating expenses, which included a $1.3 million restructuring charge incurred this quarter. Turning to the balance sheet, we remain in a strong financial position with $159.3 million in cash and cash equivalents at the end of the quarter, which includes $6.6 million in ATM proceeds raised early in the quarter. This compares to cash and cash equivalents of $155.5 million as of June 30, 2026. We believe our existing cash resources and the cash we expect to generate from product, royalty, supply, and license revenues, along with our plan to refinance our senior secured term loan facility, will allow us to continue to invest in the future and enable us to fund our current operating plan for at least the next 2 years. With that, we will now open the line for questions.

Operator

[Operator Instructions] Our first question will come from the line of Julian Harrison of BTIG.

分析師問答

Andrew Kassin

Hi, this is Andrew on for Julian. I know you talked a little bit about the status of DaVita and the uptake of Vafseo, but is there any more color you can provide on the potential ramp we could expect at the end of this year and in 2027? And then one on the pipeline, just any updates specifically on the enrollment in the praliciguat trial along with the Ebri trial? Thank you.

John Butler

Thanks, Andrew. So as I mentioned, I mean, we think it's a really positive sign that while DaVita has a post-TDAPA contract for '27, that they requested that we extend that contract out a number of years. To me, that suggests that they're expecting this product to be meaningful in their clinics. And, again, talking to folks from DaVita at the ASN meeting, it really is the VOICE data, that outcomes data, that is really driving that interest. And they've kind of outlined how they see it rolling out. I think their preference is that those kinds of conversations stay confidential. I don't know, Nick, if you want to add any color on our conversations there?

John Butler

Yes, I mean, they've been really constructive conversations around the extension of their contract. My opinion is you wouldn't want to do that unless you were going to make a larger step into Vafseo utilization, locking up that price. ESA-like pricing for a longer period of time allows you to do that because it creates certainty. So that's been, I think, a positive signal overall when we think about their role. And, again, we don't want to talk about anything specific, but their interest in VOICE, and now with VOCAL coming through, remember VOCAL was USRC versus Mircera, whereas VOCAL was Vafseo versus Epogen. This gives them another piece of data for what that conversion may look like within their DaVita population, because they are a Mircera shop overall. And so I take the contract extension as positive. And, you know, certainly having plans for a rollout that they're sharing with us, I think, is positive as well.

John Butler

And I mean, we've talked about the frustration, right? I mean, there's no question we're frustrated that things haven't moved faster. I think the word to use around DaVita is deliberate. They are very deliberate in the way they approach things. And the challenge of that for a company like DaVita is it takes them a long time to get going. The other side of that coin, we hope and count on is that once they start going, they can influence things very quickly in their units, and it becomes very sticky. And our job is to make sure that they have a very good experience as they convert people to Vafseo in their units. And your second question, Andrew, was around enrollment in our rare kidney trials.

And we haven't given any updates on timing for praliciguat. You know, we are, again, we don't want to do that until we feel really confident in getting the trial enrolled. I mean, I think when you look at other trials in FSGS, I think we would suggest that we're enrolling the trial at the same sort of pace. So that's what we would expect, but it's a competitive space and we want to make sure we know exactly when we're going to have the data before we make that announcement. You know, Ebri, of course, is a basket trial, open label. We're super excited about what Ebri can deliver. And we know we'll be able to deliver data sooner out of that trial. But it's early days there, right? But I will say again, seeing the sessions at ASN and having conversations with these kind of KOLs there, the differentiation that we can potentially bring with Ebri really is exciting to the community, and I think it can be a very, very meaningful product.

Andrew Kassin

Thank you for that, really helpful color.

John Butler

Thanks, Andrew.

Operator

And our next question will be coming from the line of Roger Song of Jefferies.

Nabeel Nissar

Hey, good morning. This is Nabeel on for Roger. So, on the VOCAL data, you mentioned some additional data that you're expecting. What could we look at beyond the hemoglobin non-inferiority? What other data could we be expecting here, dose intensity, dose adjustment frequency in VOCAL compared to VOICE? And then with all of this data, do you think we have enough evidence to pursue TIW on the label? Thank you.

John Butler

Thanks, Nabeel. So, you know, VOCAL, we've just presented top-line data. So as you can appreciate, I'm sure, there's many other analyses to be done, including thinking about how that would inform regulatory strategy around TIW. Steve, maybe some of the other kind of the omics and things, talk about that a little bit.

Steven Burke

Sure. This is Steve Burke, CMO. We have endpoints related to measures of hemoglobin stability, so high and low hemoglobin excursion, the need for red blood cell transfusion, rescue therapies. So we don't have that data yet. We also have some exploratory work going around red blood cell phenotyping. So are red blood cells made under the influence of Vafseo substantially different than those made under the influence of ESAs, which would make sense if there would be, given the different mechanism of action. So, we're waiting on data around that, proteomics, metabolomics, lipidomics on the red blood cells. So that could be quite interesting.

John Butler

Thanks, Steve. Nabeel, did that capture what you were looking for on Vafseo?

Nabeel Nissar

Yeah, no, that's very helpful. And then as we're thinking about DaVita also, you've mentioned previously, is there a number on the overlap of nephrologists that are at some of the mid-DSOs, and then how many of those overlap at DaVita? Again, you mentioned the adoption in this specialty is a little bit more gradual, but these are real differentiators, so curious also on the overlap.

John Butler

Totally agree. You have 20% in the midsize and virtually nothing in the large. The patients aren't different, right? But that's an important question. I'm sure Nick has a sense of that.

John Butler

Yes, when you think about DaVita and how they interact with large group practices around the U.S., they typically are partnering with large group practices in terms of rounding at their clinics, et cetera. And that large group practice also does that with USRC, they do that with IRC, and they do that with Fresenius. And so those physicians who are in those midsize organizations are getting experience with Vafseo. The overlap with DaVita in particular is typically around a third. If you add in Fresenius, it's over 50% overlap in those rounding physicians. And so certainly we hear from physicians who are using the product at USRC or IRC, some frustration about not being able to use it in other places, which bodes well, but importantly, they are getting the experience, so when they do have access to it, we're hoping that has a positive influence around how they treat patients with Vafseo going forward.

John Butler

And I think you made an important point that I didn't really make in the opening remarks, or maybe it probably wasn't as clear as it could be. In the TDAPA world today, there's always a prior auth, if you will, for does the patient have TDAPA reimbursement. Post-TDAPA, while the price is obviously very significantly lower, that exclusion no longer applies, right? I mean, every patient will be able to get it. So even in places where the physicians want to get it but the hoops are too many to jump through, hopefully there are fewer hoops and they can move more quickly. We really count on DaVita kind of driving this at a number of centers, but that doesn't mean that physicians can't access it at other centers. And we would hope that we could start to see an increase. And Nick also referenced Fresenius.

I didn't say anything about that. We met with the Fresenius team, multiple people met with the Fresenius team at ASN as well. I would say they are compelled by the VOICE data also. I don't want to give the impression that we're not doing everything we can to drive business at Fresenius also. And being in dialysis for a number of years, you know that it's kind of dominoes falling. I think as we get DaVita moving more quickly, Fresenius will have to move as well. Our frustration is that we feel like we've been saying that to you for a number of quarters, and we're anxious to see this move also. We feel much more convinced that there's a real desire to move at this point, but in a very deliberate way.

Nabeel Nissar

Thank you for the color. It's very clear clinicians are appreciating the data and look forward to seeing the upcoming quarters. I guess maybe one small question on those missed dialysis sessions, mentioning just kind of the lower compliance. Do we have any data on any impact on hemoglobin control or are those patients more likely to have need for ESA rescue or any thoughts there? And that's my last question. Thank you.

John Butler

We don't really have data on that. If you look at the USRDS data, it suggests that there are generally 13 dialysis sessions in a month if a patient showed up for every session. And the average is about 10.8. We've seen just slightly less than that. I think the expectation, I think most providers feel like they do better and that patients are there more like 12 times. And again, that could be a hospitalization that they're not there for, or they just simply miss it or the like. But it's not 12. It is closer to somewhere between 10.5 and 11. Now if you think about it, Nabeel, if you show up 10 to 11 times and you get your Vafseo every time, you're still talking about 80% plus compliance. That is generally better than what patients have when you send the product home with them. And we usually model something like two-thirds, that they take about two-thirds of their pill. You're still getting more dosing in TIW, with TIW dosing, but it's just less than the expectation, and that drove that inventory shift.

Nabeel Nissar

Great. Thank you for the clarity. Thank you for taking my questions.

John Butler

Thanks so much, Nabeel. I appreciate it.

Operator

And our next question will be coming from the line of Matthew Caufield of H.C. Wainwright & Company.

Matthew Caufield

Hi, John and team. In terms of the noted slower than expected uptake from the major DSOs, specifically, what do you see as the greatest barriers to broader utilization from the large DOs during post-TDAPA into 2027?

John Butler

So, again, I mean, I think if you look at them separately, DaVita is now looking at the product much more seriously and putting a very clear process in place. I think that it's incumbent upon us to make sure that we kind of help educate physicians, do what we can to make sure their experience is a good one. It's different switching someone from Mircera to Vafseo than switching someone from Epogen to Mircera, right? I mean, that has complexity to it. This has more.

So, having seen that, and the great thing about kind of where we are today is DaVita is going to learn a lot from what was experienced at USRC, IRC, and DCI. Dr. Jeff Block is an amazing advocate for this product because he believes in the outcomes benefit for patients. We know that there was a medical directors meeting that they have every year at ASN, where all the medical directors across the dialysis providers meet and Jeff presented the VOICE data to them and took their questions. So I think them understanding, so you understand the benefit, but then you've got to operationalize it. And making sure that operational process goes well is important.

I kind of referenced what we're hearing from USRC, IRC, and DCI is that physicians are doing different things, which is fine, but at the end of the day, you just want to make sure that they're having a good experience. We're feeling confident about DaVita, but again, it's not overnight. They're going to go in a deliberate way through the organization to get an experience level with that. Fresenius is going to take longer, right? They are clearly interested in the data. They got the potential benefit here for their patients, but they are a different organization. They have a relatively new CMO there, they have a brand new CEO there. Organizationally, they're in a little more flux than a place like DaVita. So we're continuing to work there. We have very good relationships with the folks at Fresenius, but I certainly don't want to leave the impression that we're ignoring Fresenius. We are not. We do believe that you don't get the standard of care until they start to move as well. We just know that they're going to take longer to move.

Matthew Caufield

Understood. I appreciate it. Thank you for the color.

John Butler

Thanks, Matt.

Operator

Our next question will be coming from the line of Allison Bradsell of Piper Sandler.

Unknown Speaker

Hi there, this is Peter on for Allison. You recently dosed the first patient in your Phase II basket trial in rare kidney diseases with initial data next year. What initial data can we expect and what findings will be most important in determining the next steps for the program?

Steven Burke

Sure. Hi, it's Steve Burke again. We're principally looking at decrease in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio. We're also measuring complement biomarkers in the blood and urine. We hope to show a substantial reduction in urine protein and do so without an inhibition of the complement system in the blood. And that's a very important differentiator for us versus other complement inhibitors.

John Butler

Yes, let me just kind of underline that. You're going to be looking for impact on proteinuria, and impact on what's the lab test, the alternative pathway in the blood, right? We're impacting the disease at the site, the kidney, without impacting the alternative pathway in the blood. It's pretty straightforward, and hopefully will be quite clear.

Unknown Speaker

Thank you.

Operator

And our next question will be coming from the line of Ed Arce of WestPark Capital.

Antonio Arce

A couple from me. So first on the quarterly results, I think you mentioned it earlier in some of your prepared remarks, but I think I missed it. Just the amount of the underlying growth in the quarter given the discontinuity between the sales and underlying growth. Secondly, you've talked about the potential for Fresenius, but I was curious about the VOCAL results and how you see that fitting in the near term, the impact of those results specifically with CMOs at the various dialysis organizations and ultimately payers and how they would view that data. And then finally, if I could, the reduction in the price that you mentioned, just wanted to get a better sense on the 2 drivers of the lower average dose and the lower compliance. I know you mentioned some of that before, but just wanted to get a better sense for what the changes were relative to what you thought previously. Thanks so much.

John Butler

Thanks, Ed, and welcome back to the call. It's good to have you back. So on the quarterly result, as I mentioned in my remarks, the third quarter underlying demand, patient demand, was somewhere between $19 million and $20 million. So if you think about it, we did just about $15 million in revenue. You took out somewhere between $4 million and $5 million of inventory from the clinics. And we did $21 million-ish last quarter, and it was between $17 million and $18 million demand last quarter. So you can see that was just a shift of inventory from 1 quarter to the next.

Now, the VOCAL results, again, we only have top-line results. I think Steve referenced earlier in his answering the question. There's a lot of really interesting science that I think will make for some interesting additional data. What we always try to do is like, what are the differences? Why is managing anemia with a HIF different than managing anemia with an ESA? And we've shown this outcomes difference. Now, you kind of want to continue to show why, why are you seeing an outcomes difference, because there are these differences in the way that a HIF drug behaves versus an ESA. I think we're in a totality of the data situation, right? And when you're looking at DaVita, it's the outcomes data that's driving them, but they look at every piece of data. And this is just another consistent study where we demonstrated that the drug is able to manage hemoglobin effectively. And you have all these other kind of interesting analyses that may yield some further differentiation. I mean, data has been published that shows differences in lifespan and size of red blood cells. I mean, there's already differences that have been demonstrated in managing with a HIF, but you just want to continue to build that evidence base for why it's a good thing and why it's not a fluke that in 2 studies we've seen this difference in outcome.

Now you mentioned payers. For better or worse, payers aren't really an important market for us to consider because Vafseo is now part of the dialysis bundle. So it is up to the dialysis provider to decide what product and the physicians of course to decide what product they're going to use. The payers don't have much of a say, even when you're outside of Medicare in commercial or Medicaid, these are still generally paid on a bundled rate so payers don't really have much of a say or care much what folks use. And then the reduction in price. I mean, we had seen that ESA prices were starting to drop. I think that's the bigger driver than anything else. Nick, maybe you want to comment on that?

John Butler

Yes, let me start with Epogen. Epogen has been putting pricing pressure into the market over the last, let me call it 18 months. So their prices were coming down. But frankly, DaVita is Mircera, Fresenius is Mircera, IRC is Mircera, and where Epogen is really predominant is within USRC. But frankly, the advocacy within USRC for Vafseo and it being in its TDAPA period, we were somewhat immune to that Epogen pricing decrease. That price continues to drop as they continue to try and gain share through pricing, because at some price point, LDOs view all ESAs as interchangeable. And so you look at that interchangeability, and recently, Mircera has started to reduce their price, and that has a bigger impact. And so when we say we're ESA-like pricing, the DOs are all really good at their jobs and listening to us, and as Mircera comes down, they're also putting pressure on Vafseo price. The other thing that's going on is, as we've kind of said all along, as volume increases, prices come down. And that's what we're seeing here, certainly, this current year.

The important part about all this kind of pricing pieces is in an environment where you're priced similarly and you have data like Vafseo that shows a clear differentiation in hospitalization, which has a large economic impact for the DOs, that becomes a really interesting data point as they think about which products they want to put on protocol and want to really encourage their physician base to use.

John Butler

Yes, I mean, they have this opportunity with these value-based care contracts that reducing hospitalization could yield a huge benefit for them. But the purchasing people just care about the price of acquisition, right? And this is a dialysis, it's just a different market, right? You don't have the same kind of leverage in contracting you do in other markets. And we kind of referenced that the dose was about 10% lower than average. You incorporate that in. It's a little bit more than that when you look at dialysis compliance. But between those, you're probably talking somewhere between a 25% and 30% reduction. And then the Epogen price reduction kind of leads us into that $1,000 to $1,500 price range that we think it's just easier for you all to understand that's where the market is today.

Antonio Arce

Great. Thank you both, John and Nick. Thanks for that. That's helpful, appreciate it.

Steven Burke

Thanks, Ed. Again, welcome back.

Operator

And our next question will come from the line of Roanna Ruiz of Leerink.

Unknown Speaker

Hi, guys. Good morning. This is Anna on for Roanna. Just to dig a little deeper into Ebri, just curious what differences are you looking for in the metrics you mentioned earlier to potentially differentiate between the basket of indications that you're studying? Thanks.

Steven Burke

Sure. Just to reiterate, maybe a little background. Ebri is a fusion protein that recognizes C3d on the surface of cells, and on the back end there are 2 factor H moieties, which are negative regulatory elements in the complement system. So what it's doing is targeting the factor H to the sites of complement activation, and will have a potential to have superior complement inhibition, but without inhibiting the complement system systemically, specifically, as John mentioned, via the alternative pathway, which is measured by a lab assay. So we're looking for excellent reduction in proteinuria across all the conditions. So C3G, that's very important. IgAN, very important. Lupus is a little more complicated because you need to show reduction of proteinuria and stabilization of kidney function, so the estimated GFR. But in all cases, it's reduction of proteinuria, stabilization of the kidney function, without inhibiting the alternative pathway in the blood, because inhibiting that pathway puts you at risk for serious bacterial infections. And so there's a boxed warning for most products and you need to vaccinate the patients. If you can't vaccinate them soon enough, you have to put them on prophylactic antibiotics. So that's the major point of differentiation. Right now we're giving the drug once a week subcutaneously. That may be the frequency going forward, or it could be less frequent. We need to do more work in that regard. So I hope that answers your question.

Unknown Speaker

Yes, super helpful. Thank you.

John Butler

Thanks, Anna.

Operator

I would now like to turn the conference back to John Butler for closing remarks.

John Butler

Thanks, Operator, and thanks all of you for your questions and for joining today. The past few months have provided many opportunities to speak directly with providers, prescribers, trialists, and patient advocates at ASN Kidney Week and other meetings and events. I always walk away feeling optimistic and encouraged that so many people share our commitment to improve the lives of people impacted by kidney disease. A standout among them is Nick Grund. Nick joined Akebia to guide the Vafseo launch and has worked tirelessly to get Vafseo to patients. He navigated the complex TDAPA landscape, built out a sales organization, and prepared the team for our post-TDAPA launch. While he's resigned his position as Chief Commercial Officer, we're fortunate to have Nick on board in a consulting capacity as we work to finalize Vafseo contract extensions into next year and seek to increase adoption, especially at the large dialysis organizations. I want to personally thank him for his dedication to Akebia and our patients. We remain committed to our goal to make Vafseo a standard of care and to advance our kidney disease pipeline. I look forward to updating you all on that progress. Thanks, everyone. Have a great day.

This live transcript is auto-generated without human intervention or review.