4 ms·

it fails miserably at chronic ones because it’s treating symptoms instead of underlying causes I'm not sure if "fails miserably" is the proper characterization

it fails miserably at chronic ones because it’s treating symptoms instead of underlying causes I'm not sure if "fails miserably" is the proper characterization. It's just simple capitalism. Just look at statins. They're something that they want to sell you for the rest of your life. Because statins treat symptoms, they're not a cure. But antibiotics? Just 10 days and you're done. Hmmm. Which is more profitable? It it any wonder that the US government is looking into how to fund development of new antibiotics? Same with vaccines. The government has had to step in to fund them.

refurb 7y ago
Yet one of the most profitable drug launches ever was a cure for hepatitis C.
- PhantomGremlin 7y ago
  Flash in the pan revenues. No company wants to have this press: Gilead Sciences Inc. will continue to feel the financial sting this year of declining revenues from its hepatitis C business, forecasting combined 2018 sales of the drugs reaching only a fifth of what the biotech recorded at the height of its commercial success three years ago. https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/gilead-hepatitis-c-revenues-slide-fourth-quarter-earnings/516494/ https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/gilead-hepatitis-c-revenu... Contrast a statin for Pfizer: $125 billion in sales over 14 years. Lipitor alone "provided up to a quarter of Pfizer Inc.'s annual revenue for years." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atorvastatin#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atorvastatin#History
  - refurb 7y ago
    Yeah, a company would certainly turn down a $10B a year drug because revenues declined after a few years! Sure it’s not as successful as Lipitor (pretty much the most successful drug ever), but it’s total sales DWARF 95% of the drugs out there.
- verucanacl 7y ago
  For good reason. Curing Hep C was a breakthrough medical innovation, which ultimately will save the healthcare system tens of billions of dollars (preventing end stage liver disease, liver transplants, etc)

refurb 7y ago

Yet one of the most profitable drug launches ever was a cure for hepatitis C.

PhantomGremlin 7y ago
Flash in the pan revenues. No company wants to have this press: Gilead Sciences Inc. will continue to feel the financial sting this year of declining revenues from its hepatitis C business, forecasting combined 2018 sales of the drugs reaching only a fifth of what the biotech recorded at the height of its commercial success three years ago. https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/gilead-hepatitis-c-revenues-slide-fourth-quarter-earnings/516494/ https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/gilead-hepatitis-c-revenu... Contrast a statin for Pfizer: $125 billion in sales over 14 years. Lipitor alone "provided up to a quarter of Pfizer Inc.'s annual revenue for years." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atorvastatin#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atorvastatin#History
- refurb 7y ago
  Yeah, a company would certainly turn down a $10B a year drug because revenues declined after a few years! Sure it’s not as successful as Lipitor (pretty much the most successful drug ever), but it’s total sales DWARF 95% of the drugs out there.
verucanacl 7y ago
For good reason. Curing Hep C was a breakthrough medical innovation, which ultimately will save the healthcare system tens of billions of dollars (preventing end stage liver disease, liver transplants, etc)