Live data from Hacker News

How pharmaceutical industry financial modelers think about rare diseases

cureffi.org

41–50 of 159 posts

Re: How pharmaceutical industry financial modelers think about rare diseases

#41
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your goal is to have your ego deflated in Excel, this is always a good place to start .. "You Suck at Excel with Joel Spolsky" .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nbkaYsR94c but I agree, Shkreli definitely had the whole speed run thing down with Excel.

Is that a parody of "You Suck at Photoshop" tutorials?

Funny, I never even noticed that, but apparently so .. his last comment in the description is "Apologies to Danny Hoyle" and a (now broken) link to "You Suck at Photoshop" videos.

Re: How pharmaceutical industry financial modelers think about rare diseases

#42
This is an impressive article and an impressive couple. From the site's about page:

My name is Eric Vallabh Minikel and I’m on a lifelong quest to develop a treatment or cure for human prion diseases. I originally trained as a city planner at M.I.T. and was working as a software engineer and data analyst in the transportation sector when, in December 2011, I got some bad news. My wife and the love of my life, Sonia Vallabh, tested positive for a mutation (PRNP D178N cis-129M) that causes genetic prion disease, and that had claimed her mother’s life one year earlier. Sonia was 27 at the time. The mean age of disease onset for her mutation is around 50, and the mutation is highly penetrant, meaning she is exceptionally likely to develop the disease unless a treatment or cure is found.

Sonia and I set out on a quest to re-train ourselves as scientists. We both started taking night classes, reading papers, calling up scientists, going to conferences. We left our old careers and found jobs in research labs, and eventually enrolled at Harvard Medical School, where we are now PhD students in biological and biomedical sciences.

One thing I've learned from smart family and friends about medical care is that you can sometimes improve outcomes quite a lot if you apply brains and effort. I have relatives who managed to convert their dad's brain cancer outcomes from a couple of months in palliative care (which the doctors were recommending) to five more mostly-good years, by finding better surgeons, signing him up for clinical trials, and getting to the cutting edge of the research and applying it. For example they switched him to a ketogenic diet back when this was just starting to show results for cancer. These guys are taking this approach to the extreme! I hope they get the result they're looking for.

Re: How pharmaceutical industry financial modelers think about rare diseases

#43
Even you can't believe there is a hen in world's biggest animals See the video how they looks and what they do https://cutt.ly/1rOU7Q

Fish walking with legs like humans See the video on link below http://bit.ly/2XRGyYD

This couple is different Girls are both twins and boys are also twin brothers see how they look in video http://bit.ly/2VwoZQd

A cute dog is dancing in video Just watch this video and try to control your laugh http://bit.ly/2ZK1XVs

Re: How pharmaceutical industry financial modelers think about rare diseases

#44
I would assume that somewhere on the bottom line there is an analysis of what the drug itself is doing. For instance, does the drug cure something or does it treat the symptoms of something? I imagine most of former are thrown out right off the bat. What we need is a system for testing, developing and selling medications that is less effected by the human condition. Perhaps, we should close the private sector and hand this off to the government or at least breakup the process by allowing the private sector to sell without the burden of testing and development? Perhaps, we as taxpayers, should be handling the burden of cost for testing and development?

Re: How pharmaceutical industry financial modelers think about rare diseases

#45
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how many times over tests were done by competing companies, duplication, and how much waste/inefficiency there was because of data not being shared - and how much further duplication may continue to happen.

My project in University (and now my company) annoyed a lot of companies when we first published DrugBank in 2006. We basically opened up the data on potential APIs and their targets into a downloadable and useable data set. I remember going to conferences and being both lauded by academics and maligned by pharma folks. This was before Wikipedia or things like Pubchem and ChEMBL were really a thing.

Why would a drug company care if you share public information? Because you make it easier to search?

Re: How pharmaceutical industry financial modelers think about rare diseases

#46
post #40

Looking at these numbers, I wonder whether the FDA process is a bit too conservative with respect to safety. There were the articles yesterday about diabetics yesterday creating closed-loop feedback systems out of old insecure parts, because a FDA-certified alternative is decades out. I've heard also of folks joining studies for newer-and-better IUDs that are approved by European regulators, but need to be re-certifi…

Simple answer is probably not; even a lowering of standards you still need to know if it works - so still doing studies. You'd also then get more drugs like Lily's recently that in post-marketing turns out not to work, but ate of half a billion in sales, and a lot of patients who got not benefit.

There is no simple easy answer, it's a massively hard problem. The regulators have to balance benefit and risk, and for the most part do a hugely impressive job where they already have to add in judgement.

Re: How pharmaceutical industry financial modelers think about rare diseases

#47
post #19

I met a PHD chemist who spent 30 years developing drugs. Over that period he developed 20,000 APIs. 4 were approved. 1 made it to the market.

That's more than what most PHD produce in their careers (in terms of go to market).

Sure, in large part because "going to market" is not the primary objective of many PhDs.

Re: How pharmaceutical industry financial modelers think about rare diseases

#48
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't just reduce the patent period without reducing the regulatory process that is required to get stuff approved. It would not work otherwise.

I hope we're not on the path to reducing rigorous testing and vetting of medicines in exchange for cheaper prices. Medical science is extremely hard, and verifying cause and effect in a system as complex as the human body takes significant resources. People want cheap, people want safe, people want well qualified individuals pursuing these advances. What people don't want is higher taxes to enable government funding…

This is exactly correct. Also there is a good incentive structure in there - a well designed clinical trial program will move between phases, collect all data possible to support an application, and have all the relevant data to get a timely approval. The better you do on evidence collection, the sooner you are on the market, and more you have to work with

Re: How pharmaceutical industry financial modelers think about rare diseases

#49
post #4

This article does a good job showing how big an impact the concept of "time value of money" can have on a multi-year investment of any kind - pharmaceutical or not. (Particularly since many of us in software are effectively investing nontrivial amounts of our salary in illiquid investments.) I'd imagine that many tend to think of a $X investment as a $X investment... but if that investor could get effectively compoun…

I agree completely, most people overlook the "opportunity cost" of investments. If an investment makes %3 per year but you could invest in something else that makes %4 per year, while you did make profit, you actually lost money, because you missed an opportunity to make an extra revenue equals to %1 of your money (or %33 more profit).

You see people do this a lot with housing. They make $100k after 5 years and pat themselves on the back.

They ignore that if they had put their down payment in the market, they would have made $110k.

Re: How pharmaceutical industry financial modelers think about rare diseases

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My project in University (and now my company) annoyed a lot of companies when we first published DrugBank in 2006. We basically opened up the data on potential APIs and their targets into a downloadable and useable data set. I remember going to conferences and being both lauded by academics and maligned by pharma folks. This was before Wikipedia or things like Pubchem and ChEMBL were really a thing.

Weren't these things already public knowledge? Did the pharma folks just dislike that you made it easily accessible? How do you make money off of DrugBank now?

Much of the information about existing drugs was organized, but within textbooks (Merck manual, etc).

It had never been systematically structured and organized online (but likely internally within pharma). The data was (is) manually curated, included off-targets and potentially new targets, along with a suite of deep chemistry features and spectra that linked small molecules to their targets. In addition it was really the first place to organize biologic drugs, with their sequences (largely extracted manually from patents).

DrugBank was all part of a larger goal, which was to decipher the human metabolome. However, it turned out to be more successful that than (http://www.hmdb.ca is the current version of the human metabolome database, something I was also intimately involved in).

In terms of how we make money, we sell access to additional manually curated datasets (with the help of a bunch of NLP stuff for initial extraction and for QA). These datasets are structured for ML applications and integration into pharma pipelines or medical software. Additionally we sell access to an API that provides advanced queries useful for drug discovery, repurposing, and generally looking up drug information in a more uniform way. We focus on developer happiness, good documentation, and speed. Even just getting a drug product list from various jurisdictions, and keeping it up to date, is a surprisingly hard problem that the API solves.

However, keeping the data open and available for academic / student research, as well as publishing and updating drugs through the website is something we love. It's been nice to find a balance where we can get out of the cycle of grant funding but still offer something to the community and general public.

Post reply on HN