transforming global diabetes care
Post on 05-Oct-2021
5 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
TRANSFORMING GLOBAL
DIABETES CAREInvestor Presentation | July 2020
2
Safe Harbor Statement
This presentation contains “forward” looking statements that are based on our management’s beliefs and assumptions and on information currently available to
management. We intend for such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in the U.S.
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include information concerning our possible or assumed strategy, future operations,
financing plans, operating model, financial position, future revenues, projected costs, competitive position, industry environment, potential growth opportunities,
potential market opportunities, plans and objectives of management and the effects of competition on our business. These also include statements with respect to
the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Dexcom and the timing of updated 2020 annual guidance
Forward-looking statements include all statements that are not historical facts and can be identified by terms such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “could,” “seeks,”
“estimates,” “targets,” “guidance,” “expects,” “intends,” “may,” “plans,” “potential,” “predicts,” “prospects,” “projects,” “should,” “will,” “would” or similar expressions
and the negatives of those terms, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words.
Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to
be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. We cannot guarantee that
we will achieve the plans, intentions, or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking
statements.
The risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from DexCom’s current expectations are more fully described in DexCom’s annual
report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020, its most recent
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2020, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2020, and its other reports,
each as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. DexCom assumes no obligation to update any such forward-looking statement after the date of this
report or to conform these forward-looking statements to actual results.
The accompanying presentation dated July 28, 2020 contains non-GAAP financial measures. The appendix reconciles the non-GAAP financial measures in that
presentation to the most directly comparable financial measures prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). These non-
GAAP financial measures include non-GAAP gross profit margin, non-GAAP operating income (loss), non-GAAP net income (loss), and non-GAAP net income
(loss) per share as well as adjusted EBITDA.
DexCom reports non-GAAP financial measures in addition to, and not as a substitute for, or superior to, measures of financial performance prepared in
accordance with GAAP. These non-GAAP financial measures are not based on any comprehensive set of accounting rules or principles, differ from GAAP
measures with the same names, and may differ from non-GAAP financial measures with the same or similar names that are used by other companies. We believe
that non-GAAP financial measures should only be used to evaluate our results of operations in conjunction with the corresponding GAAP financial
measures. We encourage investors to carefully consider our results under GAAP, as well as our supplemental non-GAAP information and the reconciliations
between these presentations, to more fully understand our business.
3
Second Quarter 2020
Resilient growth with
$452 million in revenue
Operational
Highlights
35% constant currency
revenue growth (38% US;
22% OUS)
Key Financial
Highlights
Successfully doubled G6
capacity during the first
half of 2020
Solidified balance sheet with
$1.2 billion convertible note
offering in May
Year-over-year Operating
Margin expansion of more
than 1500 basis points
Commenced launch of
G6 Pro*
*Launched on a limited basis in Q2 with the expanded launch occurring in early July.
4
2020 Guidance as of July 28, 2020
2020 Annual Revenue and Profitability Guidance
Revenue Non-GAAP
Gross Margin*
Non-GAAP
Operating Margin*Adjusted EBITDA
Margin*
Key Considerations
• Strong patient
volume growth with
some ongoing
COVID impact
• Pharmacy channel
and customer
access initiatives
• Some deferred
opex into 2H20 as
a result of COVID
(G7 trials, DTC
marketing)
~$1.850
billionMeet or
Exceed 65%
Meet or
Exceed 14%
Meet or
Exceed 24%
*See appendix for reconciliations to GAAP metrics. Adjusted EBITDA defined as EBITDA adjusted to exclude non-recurring charges and stock-based compensation.
CGM AND DIABETES MANAGEMENT
6
A Global Crisis that Remains Uncontrolled
*Actual rates of diagnosis, treatment, targets, and outcomes vary in different countries. ** That is, recommended glucose levels. We believe the outcomes have not varied significantly since
this framework was expounded by Hart JT, “Rule of halves: Implications of increasing diagnosis and reducing dropout for future workload and prescribing costs in primary care,” Brit J Gen
Pract. 1992, 42:116-119.
Note: 463 million estimate for adults with Diabetes based on the 2019 IDF Atlas.
Break the
EpidemicOnly around 6% of people with diabetes live a life free from diabetes-related complications.*
Diabetes 100%of the estimated 463 million
adults with diabetes
50% Diagnosed*
25% Receive
Care 12.5% Achieve
targets**
6% Achieve
desired outcomesLive a life free from diabetes-
related complications
7
CGM at the Center of Diabetes Management
Analytics
• Algorithms
• Outcome Measurement
• Decision Support &
Coaching
Service
• Clinicians
• Hospitals
• Education
Drugs
• Insulins
• Other T2 Compounds
• Other Medications
Drug Delivery
• Pens
• Disposable Pumps
• Durable Pumps & Supplies
8
Dexcom U.S. Market Opportunity – Core IIT Market
Total U.S. Market Size – People on Intensive Insulin Therapy
Core Intensive Business
Million People
~3.3
We remain in the early stages of the transition from fingersticks to CGM as standard of care
Estimated CGM Market
Penetration1
U.S. Type 1: ~40%
U.S. Type 2 Intensive: ~15-20%
Note: IIT = Intensive insulin therapy, those whose insulin regimen includes mealtime insulin.1) Based on internal estimates and third-party data providers as of 03/31/20. Includes users of flash glucose monitors (FGM or intermittently scanned CGM).
9
OUS Remains a Significant Growth Opportunity for IIT
◼ Core market ◼ Limited existing presence ◼ New market opportunity
Dexcom’s core IIT market consists of 7-8 million people, with OUS penetration significantly less than the U.S.
Leverage additional scale to continue
OUS G6 rollout and extend geographic
presence (e.g. Japan, South Korea)
New geographies1 represent a >5x TAM
expansion opportunity relative to
existing core markets
Key 2020 Initiatives
Continue market access efforts in core
markets
Note: IIT = Intensive insulin therapy, those whose insulin regimen includes mealtime insulin.1) Based on Wall Street research estimates for people on intensive insulin therapy. This includes India, in which Dexcom’s existing presence is minimal.
10
Diabetes Management Is a Constant Balancing Act
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
Glu
co
se
(m
g/d
l)
120
100
80
140
Cardiovascular disease
Blindness
Kidney failure
Nerve degeneration
Diminished cognitive function
Loss of consciousness
Potential death
Target Glucose Range
350
1) Murata GH, Hoffman RM, Shah JH, Wendel CS, Duckworth WC: A probabilistic model for predicting hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Diabetes Outcomes in Veterans Study (DOVES). ArchIntern Med 2004;164:1445–1450
11
Intermittent Monitoring is Not Enough
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
Glu
co
se
(m
g/d
l)
Time (hours)
0 242 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Target Glucose Range
120
SMBG*
120
100
80
140
350
*As compared to Self Monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG)
12
Intermittent Monitoring Is Not Enough
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
Glu
co
se
(m
g/d
l)
Time (hours)
0 242 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
CGM
DANGEROUS LOW FOR 1 HOUR
OVER 4 HOURS ABOVE 210 BEFORE SMBG*
ABOVE 140 FOR 13.5 HOURS
120
100
80
140
350
*Self Monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG)
Target Glucose Range
13
Intermittent Monitoring Is Not Enough
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
Glu
co
se
(m
g/d
l)
Time (hours)
0 242 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
CGM
DANGEROUS LOW FOR 1 HOUR
OVER 4 HOURS ABOVE 210 BEFORE SMBG
ABOVE 140 FOR 13.5 HOURS
120
100
80
140
350
*Self Monitoring of Blood Glucose (SMBG)
Healthy Glucose Range
Only real-time CGM can alert a patient to take necessary action
THIS IS WHERE IT
STARTS
15
Proven Outcomes with Dexcom CGM
1 Compare this outcome relative to the recent 3-year Time in Range results for intermittently-scanned CGM in the following two studies: Soupal J, Petruzelkova L, Grunberger G, et al. “Glycemic Outcomes in Adults With T1D Are
Impacted More by Continuous Glucose Monitoring Than by Insulin Delivery Method: 3 Years of Follow-Up From the COMISAIR Study.” Diabetes Care. 2019; and Charleer S, et al. “Quality of Life and Glucose Control After 1
Year of Nationwide Reimbursement of Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults Living with Type 1 Diabetes (Future): A Prospective Observational Real-World Cohort Study,” Diabetes Care. 2019.2 The DIaMonD Study, JAMA Jan 2017. The GOLD study, Lind M, et al JAMA. 2017;317(4):363-364. 3Šoupal J, Petruželková L, Flekač M et al. Comparison of Different Treatment Modalities for Type 1 Diabetes, Including
Sensor-Augmented Insulin Regimens, in 52 Weeks of Follow-Up: A COMISAIR Study. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. 2016;18(9):532-538 4Ehrhardt NM, Chellappa M. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(3):668-675. 5Anderson J, Attvall S, Sternemalm L, et al. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(6):1472-9. Observational study. 6Bailey TS, Zisser HC, Garg SK: Diabetes Technol Ther. 2007;9:203–210. a1.2 point reduction in A1C observed when CGM was worn at least 85% of the time.b1.4 point reduction in A1C from observational study where 77.9% of study population had T1D and baseline HbA1c > 9.0%.
Dexcom continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) enables
Time in Range improvement of greater than 20%1
Outcomes achieved regardless of method of insulin delivery (pump vs. pen)
Dexcom CGM significantly lowers HbA1C for those with type 2 and
type 1 diabetes4-6
Reductions average 1.2 and 1.4 percentage pointsa,b from baseline.
T1T2
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)–not the insulin delivery
method–drives A1C reduction2-3
Patients on MDI + CGM saw greater improvement than those on Pump
Therapy + SMBG
16
iCGM: Interoperability in Insulin DeliveryDexcom positioned to drive multiple commercial offerings in 2020
Insulin Pumps
Smart Insulin Pens
Insulin Patch Pumps
17
Strategic OutlookDexcom CGM is a Platform Technology
Dexcom
CGM
IntensiveCore Dexcom
Population Health• T2D (Non-intensive)
• Pre-Diabetes
• Disease
Management
Healthcare
Facilities• Hospitals
• Skilled Nursing
Facilities
• Post-Acute Care
Pregnancy• People with Diabetes
who are Pregnant
• Gestational
Successfully doubled G6 capacity,
well-positioned to support future
growth opportunities.
Proceeding with G7 manufacturing
scale-up and in-clinic work.
Updates on Key 2020 Initiatives
1
2
3
Dexcom value proposition validated in
new markets during the pandemic, with
examples of expanded use of CGM in
population health, healthcare facilities,
and pregnancy.1
1Examples include the interim CMS ruling not to enforce certain clinical criteria during the pandemic (https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/trump-administration-issues-
second-round-sweeping-changes-support-us-healthcare-system-during-covid); the FDA’s temporary allowance for use of Dexcom CGM in the inpatient setting
(https://www.dexcom.com/hospitalcovid-19); and Health Canada’s July announcement authorizing the interim use of Dexcom’s G6 for women who are pregnant with diabetes
(https://investors.dexcom.com/news-releases/news-release-details/health-canada-authorizes-interim-use-dexcom-g6-cgm-pregnant).
18
Expanding Our Market Opportunity: Type 2 Non-Intensive
Total U.S. Market Size1 and Clinical Validation of CGM
1. Total U.S. PWD (https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p0718-diabetes-report.html) less IIT population.
2. The International Consensus on Time in Range consisted of a panel of global experts that convened at ATTD in 2019. Results were published following the 2019 ADA conference. See Battelino
et al. “Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations from the International Consensus on Time in Range.” Diabetes Care. June 2019.
Rising clinical awareness of the potential for CGM to address the massive problem of Type 2 diabetes
~27 million
The 2019 International Consensus
on Time In Range2 established CGM-
based glycemic targets both Type 1
and Type 2 diabetes
The consensus provides recognition
of CGM value relative to A1c
(existing standard of care for Type 2
diabetes)
19
The participants below both have an A1c of 7.1%, but very different glycemic health
CGM Provides Insight Beyond the Existing Standard Metric (A1c) for Type 2 Diabetes
Ave
rag
e G
luco
se
(m
g/d
L)
A1C
87%
13%>180
mg/dL
70- 180 mg/dL
<70 mg/dL
Time in Range
0%
13%
87%
>180 mg/dL
70- 180 mg/dL
<70 mg/dL
Time in Range
0%
Avg Glucose: 224 mg/dL
A1C: 7.1%
Avg Glucose: 136 mg/dL
A1C: 7.1%
*Data drawn from a Dexcom pilot.
20
Traditional Care vs. Personalized Care with CGM
100 NPS score
93% of participants said Dexcom G6 was comfortable
to wear
Dexcom Internal Pilot (n=207)
0 participants withdrew from the study
87% changed their food choices based on real-time
CGM data
90% reported that real-time CGM use contributed to
a healthier lifestyle
Real-time CGM and Behavior Modification1
TRADITIONAL TREATMENT PERSONALIZED TREATMENT
21
Dexcom CGM as a Driver of User Engagement
1Ehrhardt N. and Al Zaghal E., “Continuous Glucose Monitoring As a Behavior Modification Tool,” Diabetes Care 38 (2020). Published online January 9, 2020.
100 NPS score
93% of participants said Dexcom G6 was comfortable
to wear
Dexcom Internal Pilot (n=207)
0 participants withdrew from the study
87% changed their food choices based on real-time
CGM data
90% reported that real-time CGM use contributed to
a healthier lifestyle
Real-time CGM and Behavior Modification1
22
Dexcom CGM as a Driver of Improved Outcomes and EconomicsPreliminary real-world evidence supports potential of Dexcom CGM to improve diabetes cost trends
10-Year Cost Trends Real-World Evidence
1. Total U.S. PWD (https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p0718-diabetes-report.html) less IIT population.
2. Self-monitored blood glucose.
3. Cost savings are prior to the cost of the CGM device.
99 matched people, primarily with non-intensive
Type 2 diabetes
49 standard of care SMBG2 vs. 50 G6 CGM for 6
months
Dexcom CGM Cohort Gross Savings:
~$5,000 annualized per member3
2012: $13,735
2007: $11,729
2017: $16,778
U.S. Annual Healthcare Costs per Person
with Diabetes1
23
From Clinical Outcomes to Commercial Presence Expanding the use of Dexcom CGM in Type 2 NIIT via multiple partnerships
24
The Future of CGM Technology: G7
Real-Time CGM
Factory Calibrated
Extended Sensor Wear
Fully Disposable
Simple Application
Significant Manufacturing Cost
Reduction
CGM to empower
all people
top related