Jump to content

Txzen

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    671
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Txzen

  1. Both sides of the political spectrum agree this guy needs a beating. The High Tide guy, just to clarify.
  2. Given your verbiage, I'm not sure that we're capable of a rational conversation here. That said I will agree that when it comes to healthcare, and the pricing of drugs (and services) things get emotional and sticky quickly. But to think that you'd be able to treat 40m patients is a lark. That deal was approved in 2011. I can't find more recent numbers, but 6 years later that drug (PSI-7977, sofosbuvir) Gilead had treated 1.4 million patients. Assuming each paid $7-8k for the treatment (and all that money went back to the parent company), I'm not sure that's breaking even as the 11b is only the acquisition cost, not counting clinical trials, manufacturing, marketing, etc. I'm sure it continued to generate revenue, but there were certainly other compounds competing for that market share, including additional approaches within their own pipeline (based on the article). I do think there's a real question for many of these acquisitions - and this is absolutely not the only example - of simply paying too much or overvaluing the asset or the market. But I think it's also true that in many cases the goal is not necessarily to even get back the entire cost of the development for the drug, as much as it is for particular companies to try and build a franchise in a particular disease area. Gilead has certainly done so with Hep C, BMS with multiple myeloma, etc. This is also one of those drugs, given the cost, that really pulled in some questioning regarding public funding for the clinical trials which according to this article was around $60m. As much hand-wringing as the industry has done over the past year(s) in anticipation of the Inflation Reduction Act, and how it impacts drug pricing, it's clear that change had to start somewhere.
  3. The citation was to provide the argument from the perspective of pharma. What you make of it is your own opinion. With regard to the Hep C drug, saying it 'cost more than like $350' - can you explain how you arrived at that valuation?
  4. Can’t believe this monster has already crested over to Mulholland.
  5. I didn't say that, and I think it's simplistic to think that the costs are to offset the losses incurred with a failed drug. On the contrary, quite a bit of that cost is offset the investment needed to get a drug to the clinic. Whether that is through the expense of the research, the purchase acquisition of a small startup with a promising candidate (who don't have the $$ to take it to the clinic), the length and complexity of the clinical trial, or even the expense and complexity of manufacturing the drug. It's all part of it. There are other considerations too. There was a huge controversy when the first drugs to treat people with Hepatitis C. Previously, this was a horrible diagnosis - you were going to get liver cancer, and the only 'treatment' would be to manage the disease while waiting for a liver transplant. But, compared to what many are used to for other medications, the cost of new Hep C treatment - about $84k - seems like lunacy. But after 8, 16, or 24 weeks of treatment, 95% of people are cured. In reality, the pricing may be reasonable considering the costs associated with ongoing Hep C disease. It's far more expense to get a liver transplant and live with chronic disease. None of this is easy to unpack. That last example also flies in the face of 'drug companies don't want to cure people because then they don't have patients anymore'. Again, it's a business, and business can be cutthroat, but everyplace I've worked, the goal - in oncology, autoimmunity and infectious disease - the focus has always been on bringing the best benefit to the largest number of patients. And working for the cure.
  6. The reason it is expensive is complicated, and some of it for good reason. I can think of a personal example where the treatment, which provides a cure to a large percentage of patients, also is tied to a high likelihood of serious complications. Patients who get the treatment have to have it administered only in highly specialized treatment centers and have to have a bed in the ICU waiting for them (during a defined time period). Hospital costs are high. Some of the other costs are incurred just for the trial. Hospital Safety Advisory boards, data management, the collection, shipping and analysis of clinical samples to understand how the drug is working (and for who), that is all massively expensive and while there are some ideas about how to reduce those costs, it's not always so simple or easy. Frankly, while our (and Europe's) drug development process is long, complicated and expensive the oversight is crucial to the fidelity of the results. They do a lot of things quicker and cheaper in China...and I (and many others) have a hard time believing most of the data. There's a reason why if you run your Phase 1/2 in China, and want to develop that drug in the US, you have to repeat the clinical studies. As to 'more or less knowing what the odds are', that's not how this works...that's not how any of this works. You don't pull the plug going into phase 2 unless the drug had manufacturing issues or something hugely critical at fault. Phase 2 is where you actually start learning if it is 'hitting the target'. And even if it doesn't looks as promising as you hoped, as long as it's not unreasonably toxic, you try to learn what subpopulations of patients might benefit and expand that recruitment...in a phase 3. The complexity of cancer is that if 10 people who have lung cancer, each patient in effect can have a very different disease, and understanding those differences - and what patients stand to benefit - is critical.
  7. I’m in the Bay Area but know your hood well. Fingers crossed.
  8. Parker Jones getting the Bert Auburn code red tonight.
  9. Stfu man, that’s our offense!
  10. Wut. can’t run, can’t hit a FG. That’s not rigged.
×
×
  • Create New...