FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease
1–10 of 228 posts
Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease
#2Pretty big news. I believe this is the first gene editing therapy approved by the FDA and theres a large backlog thats been in the works for many years. Id like to see the flood gates really open up for gene editing for diseases, preventative treatments, and even cosmetic.
Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease
#3Now comes the hard question, how will the US payer system afford it?
"An August report from the nonprofit Institute for Clinical and Economic Review found that the treatment and similar gene-editing therapies for sickle cell disease would be cost-effective if priced between $1.35 million and $2.05 million. In the U.S., patients with the condition and their insurers pay on average between $1.6 million and $1.7 million for disease management over the course of a lifetime." Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/08/fda-gene-editing-th...
Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease
#4Now comes the hard question, how will the US payer system afford it? "An August report from the nonprofit Institute for Clinical and Economic Review found that the treatment and similar gene-editing therapies for sickle cell disease would be cost-effective if priced between $1.35 million and $2.05 million. In the U.S., patients with the condition and their insurers pay on average between $1.6 million and $1.7 million…
[flagged]
Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease
#5Now comes the hard question, how will the US payer system afford it? "An August report from the nonprofit Institute for Clinical and Economic Review found that the treatment and similar gene-editing therapies for sickle cell disease would be cost-effective if priced between $1.35 million and $2.05 million. In the U.S., patients with the condition and their insurers pay on average between $1.6 million and $1.7 million…
[flagged]
> decided not to have children
Most people seem to have a preference for having children.
> People must be more responsible.
That's another preference, but unfortunately for you it's a minority preference while preferences are averaged (democracry) then encoded (law) at the society level.
So what's happening is the opposite: people who prefer not having children will be made to subsidize the costs of these expansive treatments.
What's interesting is that there's also a taboo of editing DNA, but this decision shows the societal preference for having children is greater than this taboo.
So maybe this taboo is just a preference after all, or a path dependant result due to the precedent of eugenism?
Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease
#6Now comes the hard question, how will the US payer system afford it? "An August report from the nonprofit Institute for Clinical and Economic Review found that the treatment and similar gene-editing therapies for sickle cell disease would be cost-effective if priced between $1.35 million and $2.05 million. In the U.S., patients with the condition and their insurers pay on average between $1.6 million and $1.7 million…
[flagged]
You're going to want to avoid using language straight out of GATTACA if you want to have a real conversation on this topic.
Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease
#7Now comes the hard question, how will the US payer system afford it? "An August report from the nonprofit Institute for Clinical and Economic Review found that the treatment and similar gene-editing therapies for sickle cell disease would be cost-effective if priced between $1.35 million and $2.05 million. In the U.S., patients with the condition and their insurers pay on average between $1.6 million and $1.7 million…
[flagged]
This feels like the plot to a dystopian science fiction story. You’re effectively arguing in favor of eugenics…
Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease
#8Pretty big news. I believe this is the first gene editing therapy approved by the FDA and theres a large backlog thats been in the works for many years. Id like to see the flood gates really open up for gene editing for diseases, preventative treatments, and even cosmetic.
> Id like to see the flood gates really open up for gene editing for diseases, preventative treatments, and even cosmetic.
Me too, because it's fun to consider DNA as some code we can edit to get outcomes we want!
However, some people are ethically opposed to that - but piggybacking on the preference people have for having children should be able to move the Overton window!
Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You're going to want to avoid using language straight out of GATTACA if you want to have a real conversation on this topic.
We voluntarily did DNA tests on both of us to rule out any parental defects, as well as tests in utero to see if there were issues. Luckily there were none, but we had some discussions on what we might do. It seems reasonable and responsible to perform these tests to be informed on your major life choices.
Re: FDA approves a CRISPR-based medicine for treatment of sickle cell disease
#10Now comes the hard question, how will the US payer system afford it? "An August report from the nonprofit Institute for Clinical and Economic Review found that the treatment and similar gene-editing therapies for sickle cell disease would be cost-effective if priced between $1.35 million and $2.05 million. In the U.S., patients with the condition and their insurers pay on average between $1.6 million and $1.7 million…
Any new product is going to start out as expensive and this likely isnt a market realized price. This is the first of its kind. It probably still wont be cheap but its not going to be this absurdly priced in the future considering even the insurance companies likely wont pay for this.