4 ms·
Suppose you have a new antibiotic that effectively kills multiresistant pathogens. The correct action in this case would be to hold it back and only use it when
by Kliment 10y ago
Suppose you have a new antibiotic that effectively kills multiresistant pathogens. The correct action in this case would be to hold it back and only use it when all else fails. This means you sell at very low volumes, and even if the prices are astronomical revenue is fairly low. Now, in addition, you can sell it on the side in places with a less moral or more weakly enforced regulatory regime, and you end up with overprescription, undercompliance, and use on livestock. As a manufacturer, you can recover costs and make profit much more easily in the second scenario, so it happens whenever the pharma companies can get away with it, which is every time. If you were to force them to hold back the new antibiotic for last resort cases only, it would indeed be guaranteed to be a commercial failure, since volumes are not sufficient to justify bringing it to market.
- Fomite 10y agoUsing a current example, Fidaxomicin, it's not currently the most widely used therapy for C. difficile infections, but it is used - and admittedly the price is very expensive. But there's also very little evidence of it being used in grey markets or for off label uses. And I'm unconvinced its destined to be a commercial failure given Merck is pushing money into it. Even if something is being used as a "drug of last resort" may have fairly high volume. For example, colistin, which is one of those drugs, are often used in combinations with other antimicrobials to help combat resistance, and is pretty much universally available to hospitals in the U.S.