3 ms·

I was uncomfortable reading this. I kept waiting for some assurance from the writer that they understood the complexity of the drug manufacturing landscape. Ins

I was uncomfortable reading this. I kept waiting for some assurance from the writer that they understood the complexity of the drug manufacturing landscape. Instead I got a blanket statement that the "expensive drug" thing is a myth, and a pro forma contrarian view 80% of the way down the page -- which was quickly shot down. (By the way, this story format is getting a little old. The writer obvious has a pitch to make. They make the pitch by talking to selected subjects and using their quotes. Then, in order to somehow assure the reader of balance, they bring in a fall guy about 80% of the way in to say something cranky. Then they dismiss it. It's okay in argumentation, I guess, but really should be rare in straight reporting.) Note that I'm not saying there isn't something cool here. Beats me. I read the article and have no more of an understanding about drug development than when I began. This felt like one of those articles where an editor runs into a booster at a social event and is told how really cool X is. They get excited. So they tell a writer to go write a story telling folks how really cool X is. Mission accomplished. But not such a good article, sadly.

randcraw 10y ago
Daniel, I do work in drug development, and I have no better idea than you how this "new and better way" to make drugs will really work. The author mentions repeatedly that DNDi got reduced cost access to both high throughput screening, clinical trials, and drug regulation, so they can develop a drug for less cost. No surprise, but how is this a sustainable model for developing most new drugs? What processes have they improved to save money/time that is not dependent on freebies from generous for-profit drug corporations, universities, and governments? Somehow I missed that part. Personally, I'd dearly love to reduce the cost of drug development and prices. But until DNDi pays the full cost for all of the reagents, processes, and rules in their drug development process, they have no business claiming to have cured the ills that bedevil big pharma. No business at all.
- msandford 10y ago
  What I read is that they aren't looking for a multi-billion dollar profit. Which means that they don't have to work on a drug that they can sell to everyone. Which means that they can focus on neglected areas of medicine for which the existing treatments are non-existent or terrible. It's the difference between "proving" that changing a button color at Amazon makes people buy 1% more stuff (worth billions, probably) and "proving" it at a start-up. The start-up won't care about 1% more, but if you can triple sales, awesome! Even though tripling sales at a start-up might only be worth $500k, not billions. When you're making HUGE inroads on efficacy it's much, much easier to demonstrate and you don't need thousands or tens of thousands of patients in the trial in order to get a statistically significant result.
  - randcraw 10y ago
    1) However chasing unserserved markets doesn't reduce the cost of making a drug, it just diminishes the financial reward. 2) The regulatory threshold for efficacy doesn't change just because the drug maker isn't trying to make a profit. They'll still need the same rate of postive outcomes for a drug to get FDA approval. Yes, if a drug is deemed life-saving, the approval criteria may ease to expedite the approval process and lessen the thresholds for efficacy and toxicity. But such fast tracking applies only to critical care drugs and without regard for their potential market size or profitability. The need must be dire and unserved.

randcraw 10y ago

Daniel, I do work in drug development, and I have no better idea than you how this "new and better way" to make drugs will really work. The author mentions repeatedly that DNDi got reduced cost access to both high throughput screening, clinical trials, and drug regulation, so they can develop a drug for less cost. No surprise, but how is this a sustainable model for developing most new drugs? What processes have they improved to save money/time that is not dependent on freebies from generous for-profit drug corporations, universities, and governments? Somehow I missed that part. Personally, I'd dearly love to reduce the cost of drug development and prices. But until DNDi pays the full cost for all of the reagents, processes, and rules in their drug development process, they have no business claiming to have cured the ills that bedevil big pharma. No business at all.

msandford 10y ago
What I read is that they aren't looking for a multi-billion dollar profit. Which means that they don't have to work on a drug that they can sell to everyone. Which means that they can focus on neglected areas of medicine for which the existing treatments are non-existent or terrible. It's the difference between "proving" that changing a button color at Amazon makes people buy 1% more stuff (worth billions, probably) and "proving" it at a start-up. The start-up won't care about 1% more, but if you can triple sales, awesome! Even though tripling sales at a start-up might only be worth $500k, not billions. When you're making HUGE inroads on efficacy it's much, much easier to demonstrate and you don't need thousands or tens of thousands of patients in the trial in order to get a statistically significant result.
- randcraw 10y ago
  1) However chasing unserserved markets doesn't reduce the cost of making a drug, it just diminishes the financial reward. 2) The regulatory threshold for efficacy doesn't change just because the drug maker isn't trying to make a profit. They'll still need the same rate of postive outcomes for a drug to get FDA approval. Yes, if a drug is deemed life-saving, the approval criteria may ease to expedite the approval process and lessen the thresholds for efficacy and toxicity. But such fast tracking applies only to critical care drugs and without regard for their potential market size or profitability. The need must be dire and unserved.