Indian Government uses special powers to slash cancer drug price by 97%

Post by InclinedPlane » Tue, Mar 13, 2012, 8:14 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #108

JunkDNA wrote: post #36

I worked in the drug R&D business for over 8 years. I still follow the industry closely. Some things always get lost in these discussions. First, manufacturing an existing drug is absurdly cheap. Modern industrial chemistry ensures this for all small molecule drugs (note that this is not the same case for the "biologics" which are often fiendishly difficult to make). Almost all the cost in a drug is the manufacturer…

> Almost all the cost in a drug is the manufacturer recouping R&D costs. Actually that's not true. Big pharma spends twice as much on advertising as they do on R&D: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.ht... They also spend a significant amount of money on government fines due to corrupt practices (i.e. killing people). They are now the single most corrupt industry, paying significantly more fine…

Post by refurb » Tue, Mar 13, 2012, 8:19 PM UTC

Yeroc wrote: post #173

refurb wrote: post #137

This may end up hurting India not helping. In order to get a drug approved in India, you need to run clinical trial on Indians. You also need to go to through the regulatory process, which isn't cheap. If drug companies fear that the millions they spend on getting a drug approved in India won't be recouped because the gov't issues a compulsory license, then they simply won't do it. I mean think about it... if introdu…

The really simple argument is that at the previous price very, very few people in India could afford it. So in the end it is more than likely that the revenue that is gained is higher than it would have been at the very high price.

Post by refurb » Tue, Mar 13, 2012, 8:22 PM UTC

intended wrote: post #148

refurb wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weight loss drugs. Three new products were rejected by the FDA last year. Sure these drugs had risks, but what's the cost of obesity in terms of medical costs? At this point in time the FDA has incredibly high standards of safety for weight loss drugs and not without reason. But what are the costs of the 40% of obese Americans who will get diabetes, cardiovascular disease, etc, etc?

Wait - so you want to take the at risk group and give them a drug that failed human safety tests? EDIT: I am trying to say that while obesity is 'bad', giving them a drug that adds to their risk levels is not a solution. If you are still pro your position, bear in mind that you are now throwing dice and hoping that: (people who improve) >= (people who suffer + nothing happens). Are you qualified to play dice with peo…

Post by aaronblohowiak » Tue, Mar 13, 2012, 8:37 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #186

cma wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most private research dollars go into patent work-around drugs--drugs that have the same basic function as another, but successfully work around its patent (and get their own patent in the process). E.g. duplicated effort with occasional serendipity leading to something new.

This is patently false. Most research dollars go into new therapies with completely new mechanisms of action. Companies are often working in similar areas, that's true. The best example of this is the statins. Lipitor was the 5th statin to hit the market. Was it a me-too drug? I guess, but it was also superior to the other 4 that came out first (less incidence of muscle damage, more efficacious). Did Pfizer say "Gee,…

Post by vannevar » Tue, Mar 13, 2012, 8:54 PM UTC

ced wrote: post #174

vannevar wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it's almost impossible to rig the statistics. I would argue that it's actually impossible to economically conduct sufficient studies to reliably predict the efficacy and long term safety of drugs in the general population. And you're right, every drug on the market has passed Phase 3 trials because they're cherrypicked . A big drug company knows how many drugs it needs in production to ensure that some perce…

Do you have any evidence for that? I don't have any background in pharma, but my background in stats tells me that the odds of passing a controlled study with a placebo would be so low as to be economically infeasible.