5 ms·
I would love to know the shortcut to developing a commercially viable drug for $34M.
by javiramos 2y ago
I would love to know the shortcut to developing a commercially viable drug for $34M.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoIf I understand the trial[1] correctly, the "shortcut" is running a trial with small molecule drugs that were invented 90-20 years ago, commercially developed by someone else, and are now off or going off patent. Shameless propaganda from the guardian to put this in contrast with new biologic molecules. https://endtb.org/endtb-clinical-trial-results https://endtb.org/endtb-clinical-trial-results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedaquiline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedaquiline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delamanid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delamanid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clofazimine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clofazimine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linezolid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linezolid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinolone_antibiotic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinolone_antibiotic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrazinamide#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrazinamide#History
- karmajunkie 2y agoif you’re trying to get an idea of what it actually costs to run a trial, eliminating the cost of drug development seems like exactly the thing to do.
- s1artibartfast 2y agosure, but the industry numbers the guardian compares to are "all-in". Molecular science, bio-reactors, regulatory testing, quality control, failed drugs, lawsuits, ect. It is a fundamentally bogus apples to oranges comparison, never mind the fact that the trial was run in Kazakhstan opposed the the USA.
- LorenPechtel 2y agoCombo of existing drugs. They're looking at a test of whether a particular cocktail works, the drugs themselves were tested long ago.