| Author |
Topic:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... [Locked] |
Cawlin  Posts: 1,759
Registered: 2005-2-22 07:58:42
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
vn_nnanji posted:
Cawlin posted:
GrilledCheez posted:
The pharmaceutical industry as it stands right now is ludicrous. When we have our best and brightest and most expensive researching hair growers at an eight to one rate over cancer killers, you know we've failed ourselves and our children.
Source?
Our nation's best and brightest are in finance, figuring out ways to buy governments and funnel the wealth and control of the planet into fewer and fewer hands.
Tell that to the several hundreds of biotech firms in San Diego, SFO, Boston and RCP.
I presume you are speaking to GC because my remark was really a tongue-in-cheek extension of the discussions about how biotech doesn't pay anymore like finance does... and do you mean RTP? Sihtloads of biotechs all over the Northeast btw from Boston to RTP including NJ, NY, PA, MD.
-----signature-----
If ignorance were painful, half the posters here would be on morphine drips.
Everyone playing WoW knows everything about playing two classes: 1) their own and 2) Hunters
|
Cawlin Posts: 1,759
Registered: 2005-2-22 07:58:42
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
vn_nnanji posted:
Yukishiro1 posted:
And most of them do jack shit when they don't actively hurt you.
We've already invented pretty much all the low-cost high-benefit drugs out there to be invented. New drugs are going to continue to cost more and more and provide less and less benefit for the forseeable future, at least until there is some fundamental breakthrough in drug design.
They are working on addressing diseases at the level of DNA, creating compounds that will address just the disease and not medicate the whole body when only part is needed. They literally are rewriting the transcription of the disease at the rDNA level, interrupting the diseases ability to replicate and prosper.
The main roadblock is drug delivery but Oligonucleotide drugs are already in use. Naturally the costs are staggering, for many reasons, some natural and some artificial.
Yeah, the likelihood of something like a new penicillin showing up to cure cancer is extremely low...
-----signature-----
If ignorance were painful, half the posters here would be on morphine drips.
Everyone playing WoW knows everything about playing two classes: 1) their own and 2) Hunters
|
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
vn_nnanji posted:
They are working on addressing diseases at the level of DNA, creating compounds that will address just the disease and not medicate the whole body when only part is needed. They literally are rewriting the transcription of the disease at the rDNA level, interrupting the diseases ability to replicate and prosper.
The main roadblock is drug delivery but Oligonucleotide drugs are already in use. Naturally the costs are staggering, for many reasons, some natural and some artificial.
I'm sure that's what their PR firm says in their brochures. When's the last time anyone invented a really truly effective drug that fundmentally changed our approach some area of medicine? Something you could put in the same catagory with penicillin or a polio vaccine or the birth control pill.
These days the drugs that get released are mostly crap that maybe lowers your chance of something or other by a few % points, has nasty side effects that may be about the same as the benefits, and costs thousands of dollars per year to do it.
|
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
Cawlin posted:
Generally, one of the reasons you'd see a drug fail in late stage clinical trials is due to adverse events which are safety issues - i.e. the drug causes liver failure or something like that, or a person taking the drug committed suicide and it was determined to be due to a hormonal imbalance brought about by your drug. You'd have to get a whole lot of people to be willing to lie for you to get those sorts of things past the FDA - basically you'd have to not report them or you'd have to get a number of physicians to falsify reports - the very height of fraud would have to be committed. That is not to say that I don't believe it happens, but it's a pretty big deal...
Another reason for a drug to fail in late state clinical trials would be lack of efficacy. There's only so much data massaging you can do to show efficacy. The FDA has great statisticians working for them too and when a drug company tries to present data of a questionable nature, the FDA is all over them about getting to the bottom of it if they smell a rat.
In short, yes, companies may try to be reckless with bringing a drug to market but there are a fair number of safeguards against that, not the least of which is the FDA. Incidentally, the folks at FDA are a pretty serious bunch...
It seems like this kind of issue is being addressed largely in the marketing. The number of drug advertisements I see on television has increased dramatically over the past few years, and the listed risks in their use also seems to have increased. "May cause death" and "may cause suicidal thoughts" have become common and also weasel words like "... has been suggested to help [symptom or illness]..."
-----signature-----
I radiate more heat than light.
I know what you're trying to do but you're just sailing another failboat over the falls. - imaloon1
|
Cawlin Posts: 1,759
Registered: 2005-2-22 07:58:42
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
Yukishiro1 posted:
I'm sure that's what their PR firm says in their brochures. When's the last time anyone invented a really truly effective drug that fundmentally changed our approach some area of medicine? Something you could put in the same catagory with penicillin or a polio vaccine or the birth control pill.
Look up seratonin uptake inhibitors.
Look up statins.
Consider what's going on with stem cell research now (which has been artificially on hold for 20 years).
Yukishiro1 posted:
These days the drugs that get released are mostly crap that maybe lowers your chance of something or other by a few % points, has nasty side effects that may be about the same as the benefits, and costs thousands of dollars per year to do it.
These days it's all about a few percentage points here or there. Life expectancy is higher than ever, quality of life is higher than ever. Irresponsible behavior by people (eating poorly, smoking, engaging in other unhealthy activities) is also higher than ever.
Should those few percentage points of reduced risk be abandoned? Should people with a 25% greater risk of heart disease due to hereditary history not have drugs which could reduce that to a 15% greater risk?
-----signature-----
If ignorance were painful, half the posters here would be on morphine drips.
Everyone playing WoW knows everything about playing two classes: 1) their own and 2) Hunters
|
Cawlin Posts: 1,759
Registered: 2005-2-22 07:58:42
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
Eager_Igraine posted:
It seems like this kind of issue is being addressed largely in the marketing. The number of drug advertisements I see on television has increased dramatically over the past few years, and the listed risks in their use also seems to have increased. "May cause death" and "may cause suicidal thoughts" have become common and also weasel words like "... has been suggested to help [symptom or illness]..."
Marketing is a whole other ball of wax. Marketing is subject to FDA regulation too by the way...
Bear in mind these few things:
1) If someone during a clinical trial suffers an adverse event, and medical science cannot conclusively tie it to your drug, but also cannot conclusively say your drug had nothing to do with it, you are required to report it and to include it on your labeling AND in your advertising.
2) You are forbidden from advertising what your drug supposedly does in "concrete" terms. You may not say "This drug unequivocally reduces your risk of heart disease". You have to say "Ask your doctor if XYZ drug might be a good candidate for you!"
There are more forces at work there than are apparent with respect to labeling, marketing claims and so forth. In the end, the FDA wants your physician to make the decisions about your therapies, not the drug companies.
-----signature-----
If ignorance were painful, half the posters here would be on morphine drips.
Everyone playing WoW knows everything about playing two classes: 1) their own and 2) Hunters
|
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
Cawlin posted:
Yukishiro1 posted:
I'm sure that's what their PR firm says in their brochures. When's the last time anyone invented a really truly effective drug that fundmentally changed our approach some area of medicine? Something you could put in the same catagory with penicillin or a polio vaccine or the birth control pill.
Look up seratonin uptake inhibitors.
Look up statins.
Consider what's going on with stem cell research now (which has been artificially on hold for 20 years).
None of those have anywhere near the effect of any of the things I listed. The anti-depressant drugs might come closest, but they also create the biggest number of problems and are rampantly overprescribed.
Pharma profits come mostly from % drugs with serious side effects which are relentlessly pushed on people through TV advertising and truly corrupt bribes to doctors.
And no, obviously % drugs arn't necessarily worthless, and yes, having a x% less chance of heart attacks is better than not. But the amount of money spent to generate those effects is nowhere near as efficient as the older drugs. Penicillin saved millions of lives for what was basically pennies by the time it went into full production. These days we spend 10,000 dollars a year on lowering someone's risk of a heart attack by 3% while potentially giving them all sorts of nasty side effects, when if they had just eaten and exercised right in the first place they would have reduced their risk by many times that amount.
|
__Bonk__  Posts: 5,122
Registered: 2009-7-25 03:04:52
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
Most of the cost is probably all the testing required by the government. I guarantee that the US govermnet will figure out a way to kill the US drug companies and give the market share to overseas companies one day
-----signature-----
I keep my eyes fixed on the sun!
A change in feeling is a change in destiny.
|
Cawlin Posts: 1,759
Registered: 2005-2-22 07:58:42
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
Yukishiro1 posted:
Cawlin posted:
Yukishiro1 posted:
I'm sure that's what their PR firm says in their brochures. When's the last time anyone invented a really truly effective drug that fundmentally changed our approach some area of medicine? Something you could put in the same catagory with penicillin or a polio vaccine or the birth control pill.
Look up seratonin uptake inhibitors.
Look up statins.
Consider what's going on with stem cell research now (which has been artificially on hold for 20 years).
None of those have anywhere near the effect of any of the things I listed. The anti-depressant drugs might come closest, but they also create the biggest number of problems and are rampantly overprescribed.
I think you underestimate the number of people who are taking statins and related/derived therapies and you also underestimate the number of people benefiting from the derivatives of the first seratonin uptake inhibitors as well. Consider that penicillin was just the first of a whole litany of various antibiotics, an entire family of drugs - penicillin itself is practically not even used today, it's various other antibiotic derivatives.
Yukishiro1 posted:
Pharma profits come mostly from % drugs with serious side effects which are relentlessly pushed on people through TV advertising and truly corrupt bribes to doctors.
You have a source on that? It sounds like the kind of thing you heard from Bonk or sweeny.
Yukishiro1 posted:
And no, obviously % drugs arn't necessarily worthless, and yes, having a x% less chance of heart attacks is better than not. But the amount of money spent to generate those effects is nowhere near as efficient as the older drugs. Penicillin saved millions of lives for what was basically pennies by the time it went into full production. These days we spend 10,000 dollars a year on lowering someone's risk of a heart attack by 3% while potentially giving them all sorts of nasty side effects, when if they had just eaten and exercised right in the first place they would have reduced their risk by many times that amount.
So, is that the drug companies' fault? I mean, yeah, what a fkn boon to find out that bread mold gave us such a wonderful drug, but seriously dude... Do you think pharma isn't researching those options? I get that you want national healthcare so that you can use the leverage to control peoples' behavior and make them act the way you want them to, but that's kind of far afield from this discussion... you should start a "  uki's megalomania" thread to discuss how you'd like to make sure everyone does what you think they should...
-----signature-----
If ignorance were painful, half the posters here would be on morphine drips.
Everyone playing WoW knows everything about playing two classes: 1) their own and 2) Hunters
|
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
The cost of bringing a new drug to market... |
|
What part? That revenues come from % drugs? That's just facts.
Or the bit about relentlessly pushing drugs on patients and doctors? Don't you work in pharma? You honestly don't know how this works? How pharma targets doctors and takes them out to expensive dinners with attractive young sales agents and does all sorts of things to try to get doctors to push their drugs?
|
|
