This guy didn't do a lot of research when he picked chronic spontaneous urticaria as the target human indication. There already is an effective biologic, omalizumab, that works on the majority of patients and has no side effects (source: I have CSU/pressure urticaria). Cyclosporine is a heavy duty immunosuppressant with side effects that are worse than hives, imo, so I'm not sure what the target market would be. Personally I'd rather not take the risks of being seriously immunosuppressed, even if it meant getting hives. And, it was the drug my immunologist wanted me to try next if the biologic didn't work, so it's already being prescribed off label.
I'm making drugs for cats
81–90 of 101 posts
Re: I'm making drugs for cats
#82> I felt good! The next step was in sight: a test of the drug in humans, to see if we actually saw the blood levels of cyclosporine that I expected we would. We had contracted with a CRO in the Netherlands and were raising the $1+ million needed to actually carry out the test when – pop! – the biotech markets imploded. Suddenly, investors literally stopped returning my (and everyone else’s) emails. That sounds like a…
Well yes. But the pay off for a "blockbuster" (or two) more than makes up for all the aggregated losses. Hence why the massive pharma companies still exist, operate and, generally post massive profits YoY. You can easily absorb multiple $x-hundred million losses when your blockbusters are happily pulling in $5bn a year, YoY for 5+ years (with minimal expenditure). Years ago, somebody very senior at JnJ told me how the company really wasn't a pharma company at all, it was actually a focused, strategic accounting business.
They weigh up all their current & future pipeline almost daily in terms of risk/reward monetary values. I'm not really sure I feel a great desire to shed a tear for big pharma. They always seem to do alright when their results get posted at the end of each financial year. I've wrestled with the debate as to whether human medicine development/discovery is best done in this environment for a long time. And, I still haven't decided. Competition is good/healthy, but financial drive seems to be trumping the human/healing element more than ever.
In the last decade, it feels like they've spun most of the risks out to the small biotech startups, who they'll all get into a bidding war over once a potential product shows a vague shred of promise/monetary value. I'm not discounting the fact that the hills aren't littered with the hundreds of corpses of failed "promising" new biotechs/drugs they pumped hundreds of millions into for absolutely no return at all. I'm just not convinced the whole ecosystem is the best long-term strategy for human health. I guess that's what I'm really trying to say.
Re: I'm making drugs for cats
#83My cat got bartonella which caused this condition and had to have all his teeth removed. Prior to the surgery he was in absolute misery, and the only treatment was steroids that did little and aren't meant for longtime use. The surgery was several thousand dollars, out of reach for a lot of families. An effective treatment for this condition would be great!
"The surgery was several thousand dollars, out of reach for a lot of families." Wouldn't pet health insurance cover it?
Pet health insurance isn't an expected value positive sort of thing. There are often annual maxima as low as a couple thousand dollars.
Re: I'm making drugs for cats
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to both Merriam Webster and Oxford (not the OED, but the regular one) there are two definitions for retarded, both of which are offensive, and neither of which mean slow.
Don't use dictionaries that change the definitions of words for political means. Retard means slow. A retard chamber, for example, contains retardant that is meant to slow the spread of fire. There is a perpetual movement to take words and shuffle them around as a form of purity spiraling. People who don't want to work build entire careers out of pretending moral outrage. Play their game and you give them power. Next…
> Don't use dictionaries that change the definitions of words for political means.
I never thought I’d come across a sincere call for banning all dictionaries, but… well I never thought it, it doesn’t make me surprised.
Re: I'm making drugs for cats
#85Damn I thought he'd be working on like, cat Ecstasy or something.
8/10 cats showed a preference for microdosing psychedelics
Re: I'm making drugs for cats
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't use dictionaries that change the definitions of words for political means. Retard means slow. A retard chamber, for example, contains retardant that is meant to slow the spread of fire. There is a perpetual movement to take words and shuffle them around as a form of purity spiraling. People who don't want to work build entire careers out of pretending moral outrage. Play their game and you give them power. Next…
> Next thing you know, the words that were okay to say are verboten So what? There are a hundred words your ancestors used that you never will. How has it changed your life one iota to have never uttered cockalorum, twitter-light, or grumpish? > There is a perpetual movement to take words and shuffle them around Yes, this has happened for all time.
> Yes, this has happened for all time.
No, that's a modern side effect of critical theory and grievance agitators. Nice try, though.
Re: I'm making drugs for cats
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't use dictionaries that change the definitions of words for political means. Retard means slow. A retard chamber, for example, contains retardant that is meant to slow the spread of fire. There is a perpetual movement to take words and shuffle them around as a form of purity spiraling. People who don't want to work build entire careers out of pretending moral outrage. Play their game and you give them power. Next…
> Don't use dictionaries that change the definitions of words for political means. I never thought I’d come across a sincere call for banning all dictionaries, but… well I never thought it, it doesn’t make me surprised.
There are plenty of dictionaries that don't manipulate you 1984 style. I don't recall calling for any bannings, either.
Re: I'm making drugs for cats
#88> I felt good! The next step was in sight: a test of the drug in humans, to see if we actually saw the blood levels of cyclosporine that I expected we would. We had contracted with a CRO in the Netherlands and were raising the $1+ million needed to actually carry out the test when – pop! – the biotech markets imploded. Suddenly, investors literally stopped returning my (and everyone else’s) emails. That sounds like a…
Well yes. But the pay off for a "blockbuster" (or two) more than makes up for all the aggregated losses. Hence why the massive pharma companies still exist, operate and, generally post massive profits YoY. You can easily absorb multiple $x-hundred million losses when your blockbusters are happily pulling in $5bn a year, YoY for 5+ years (with minimal expenditure). Years ago, somebody very senior at JnJ told me how th…
Be careful with your survivorship bias.
Plenty of large pharma companies have effectively disappeared over the last few decades - typically because the "big bets" failed and they got swallowed up by some larger player who wants to add to their portfolio.
Add in all the biotechs that spend tens or hundreds of millions on R&D and get $0 in the end, biotech is far from an "easy" business.
Re: I'm making drugs for cats
#89Gee whiz this is a great chemical, let's find something it's good for and perhaps we'll be able to make money on it someday... Seems like a really long diversion from the original goals, doesn't it? "People have problem A and i want to test solution X for effectiveness" was the first principle, right? Now it sounds a lot like "we bought tons of this crap now we've gotta push it somehow "
Shocker how one needs to find resources to actually do things, huh?
Re: I'm making drugs for cats
#90A concern with using cyclosporine for neurodegeneration may be that it causes progressive kidney damage and high blood pressure with long term usage. We use it a lot for many immunologically mediated skin diseases however almost always plan to change after a year to an alternative for this reason.
Regarding chronic idiopathic urticaria - cyclosporine was used in the past but now in the UK omalizumab is licensed for this and generally is more safe and effective.