3 ms·

There needs to be a better, not-for-profit model where a failed compound doesn't matter as much Phase II/III clinical testing is expensive, and the failure rat

There needs to be a better, not-for-profit model where a failed compound doesn't matter as much Phase II/III clinical testing is expensive, and the failure rate (i.e. low efficacy, compound simply doesn't perform as expected, and certainly no better than what's already at market) is high. That's what it is, there isn't much that can be done at that front. Thankfully a few months ago Goldman Sachs directly addressed the elephant in the room: pharma yields bad returns, investment in pharma is inadvisable. There needs to be a different financing model, perhaps from the public purse.

refurb 9y ago
There needs to be a different financing model, perhaps from the public purse. How does that solve the issue at hand? As you said, development is expensive and has a high failure rate. Why would public funding change either one of those?
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  New antibiotics are high on the list of things that are needed, but they will only be used as treatment of last resort, this is where the traditional investment model fails. Development is too expensive to ever recover the outlays. Right now science can't do anything about the high failure rates in Phase II and Phase III trials. The problem isn't to come up with a compound against your target of choice, it's that apart from clinical trials we don't have a way to predict if in real life it will perform better than placebo (Phase II) or adequately (Phase III).
  - Fomite 9y ago
    While commonly used as an example, I'll note this isn't actually even always true for antibiotics. The development of Fidaxomicin/Difficid is actually an example of a fairly inexpensive clinical trial (by clinical trial standards), and Merck didn't buy Cubist for $9.5 billion for a drug they don't think will recover their outlay.
- tikhonj 9y ago
  At the very least it would spread the cost out over everyone rather than just the people who end up needing the drugs that pass the expensive process.
  - refurb 9y ago
    The cost is already spread over everyone. Drug companies are paid by insurance companies and the gov't (public healthcare). Those entities are paid through insurance premiums and taxes.
michaelmrose 9y ago
In summery financing from the public purse with positive valuable results belonging to private parties that people like Sachs can acquire and jack up the price. What a fantastic idea.

refurb 9y ago

There needs to be a different financing model, perhaps from the public purse. How does that solve the issue at hand? As you said, development is expensive and has a high failure rate. Why would public funding change either one of those?

HarryHirsch 9y ago
New antibiotics are high on the list of things that are needed, but they will only be used as treatment of last resort, this is where the traditional investment model fails. Development is too expensive to ever recover the outlays. Right now science can't do anything about the high failure rates in Phase II and Phase III trials. The problem isn't to come up with a compound against your target of choice, it's that apart from clinical trials we don't have a way to predict if in real life it will perform better than placebo (Phase II) or adequately (Phase III).
- Fomite 9y ago
  While commonly used as an example, I'll note this isn't actually even always true for antibiotics. The development of Fidaxomicin/Difficid is actually an example of a fairly inexpensive clinical trial (by clinical trial standards), and Merck didn't buy Cubist for $9.5 billion for a drug they don't think will recover their outlay.
tikhonj 9y ago
At the very least it would spread the cost out over everyone rather than just the people who end up needing the drugs that pass the expensive process.
- refurb 9y ago
  The cost is already spread over everyone. Drug companies are paid by insurance companies and the gov't (public healthcare). Those entities are paid through insurance premiums and taxes.

michaelmrose 9y ago

In summery financing from the public purse with positive valuable results belonging to private parties that people like Sachs can acquire and jack up the price. What a fantastic idea.