3 ms·
There is definitely a bias towards chronic rather than acute illness, which I think is what the GP is discussing. This is why there is more research on high blo
by mandevil 7y ago
There is definitely a bias towards chronic rather than acute illness, which I think is what the GP is discussing. This is why there is more research on high blood pressure than into antibiotics.
On the other hand, something like Solvadi (an actual cure for HepC in 90 days) really is a miracle cure for a chronic problem, and cost effective even at its very high price point (1k/pill, 90k total was its initial list price).
- refurb 7y agoThere is no bias towards chronic treatments, it's just the best that we have right now. Your Sovaldi example shows that - a one-time cure can command a price that is bigger than a chronic treatment. And the reason nobody invests in antibiotics (although there are several very profitable ones) is because any new drug is reserved for last line. Doctors don't want to bring out the big guns until all the others have failed.
- entee 7y agoThis, so much this. It's very hard to make an antibiotics company work, not so much because you can't make money on the pill itself, but because it will never actually get used unless the infection is dire. This means that your market is microscopic and you can't recover the cost of developing the drug in the first place. Antibiotics are special and should be incentivized using a different system. I've heard ideas like an international government compact that awards a large, multi-billion $ prize in exchange for the patent and full generic production immediately. This would allow a consortium/company to do very well for itself but the whole world to benefit in the aggregate for very little cost.