You wouldn't believe the cost of some medications. However, it is mostly doctors who are at fault for buying into pharm company's marketing. Go generic.

yes, nothing to do with catsailing.

What was the poll again? This sounds a lot like the "Test".

Clayton

If I listened to the advertising, Viagra would make me throw a football better (according to the commercial), or somehow give me the compulsion to drag a bathtub to the edge of a cliff.

I do appreciate the drug manufacturing companies when they tell me over the TV that I have a new disease, like leg twitch, that must be treated with medication.

Whether or not Trey really wants to become a F16 sailor.

I vote yes, as he was envious of the large gap between the boom and the trampoline in which to cross under during a crash gybe.

Yes - I really like the "RLS - Restless Leg Syndrome" thing. Wow! Glad we mobilized the industry on that one! A new thing to obsess about. I'm really glad we got that one nailed, though. Good then, now, on to cancer!

Actually, I've always had my own cure for having restless legs in the middle of the night. Since those legs are so darn restless I let them carry me down to the fridge, where I can drown their restlessness in beer. Soon I plan to apply for a grant, then I'll put together my own cheesy commercials (ask your doctor if beer is right for you!), sponsor NASCAR teams, and then give lots of free samples to doctors while complaining about how much making beer costs...

As someone who in fact, has a lot to do with pharma drug research and development, I feel the need to set the record straight.

Usually when a client creates a compound, they develop it with the intent to treat a certain illness/condition/whatever.

Whether it be in animal trials, or in Phase I/II clinical trials, 90% of the time, the drug wont work for what it was intended, but it will be noticed that it has beneficial side effects on certain subjects. For example, Viagra was originally intended to be a blood pressure medication, and then the male subjects in the trial were like "hey look at this!" and then the drug went off on that tangent of research.

Currently my firm is researching a drug for a client that is being tested for three separate conditions: MS, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and Crohn's Disease and whats scary, is that its effective on all three.

So this is how we end up getting drugs made for potentially stupid conditions that don't seem like much - however to the people suffering from these "trivial" conditions, these drugs can provide a needed function.

Alright, off soapbox, I've got to carve up some lab data now.

(oh btw, I'd say about 75% of our current trials we have running are oncology trials, very very morbid to work on)

Understand all that, it's definitely interesting how some things turn up working for stuff even as it may turn out to be detrimental in its original intended application.

But with things like RLS - I can only imagine how much work they had to do to find that one. Picture researcher in the lab - "Eureka! This drug that has killed all of the mice with thyroid tumors is just the thing for Restless Leg Syndrome, otherwise known as RLS!". Later, in the boardroom - "Gadzooks! Millions of people might just think that their legs have gone to sleep! We need to alert them that they may have Restless Leg Syndrom, otherwise known as RLS! Now, how can we convince them they need to ask their doctor if our thyroid tumored mouse killing drug is right for them? If only there was a way... I mean, besides publishing the study so their doctors can understand the issues and prescribe the drug based on truly arbitrary things like an actual diagnosis... Hmmmm... Call advertising! The people must inform their doctors that they have RLS and need our thyroid tumored mouse killing drug! That's it! I give myself a bonus!"

Sorry, couldn't resist. Hey, wan't there something about sailing somewhere in this thread?

One problem with going after the pharm companies for their money-mongering is that if the only motivation for that next miracle drug is money then so be it. No one can say that RD doesn't cost lots of money... and then don't forget the lawyers who advertise on TV "you may be entitled to a cash settlement" if you took such and such drug.

A friend of mine (actually college roomate) is head of department at a MAJOR pharm. company. He has been there almost 30 years and heard something in a meeting of all the higher up research docs that floored him and he passed it on to me.
He said they casually tossed around the figure of 20-25% efficacy rate as being "superb". Upon his asking for clarification they told him that 20 - 25 % is "all they could ever hope for in a new drug". That would be a wild success. That tells me that when they give you a drug they are only guessing that it will help about 1 in 4 or 5 people. Another big deal is just how many EXPENSIVE drug trials turn out to be absolutely dead ends. That is big money right out the window. I for one, am glad they keep having a strong financial incentive to keep searching out new and better drugs. Someday I may need them!

Greg

If you check out the placebo effect you will find that that has 10% efficacy just by the patients thinking they are taking something that will work.

As for RD for future drugs? I feel the same... given my age now, viagra will be generic by the time I may need it <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

A lot of it has to do with the administrative hoops that you have to jump through with the FDA. Regardless of your stance on governmental oversight, there is a ton of red tape you have to get through to even BEGIN to study a drug.

In fact, my whole company makes hundreds of millions every year from pharmas paying us to deal with it FOR them.

My billable rate is up near $300/hr now, over the course of your standard phase II trial, I'll spend no less than 100 hours on a trial and I'm just a small drop in the bucket. If the trial is a bust, then thats just money up in smoke.

As for the quoted efficacy rates, I don't know if I believe that or not. There are things called "End Points" which are statistical milestones to guage the "efficacy" of a drug. Depending on the trial/compound/phase, you'll have number of different end points and whether you make them or not determines the efficacy. Reading a trial protocol alone can give you an amazing sense of what the companies are trying to do with the drug.

For instance, on an oncology trial, one of the exclusion criterias is commonly "Subject life expectancy is greater than 6 months." Meaning that if the subject is expected to live more than 6 months, they cannot be included in the trial. Rating the expected end points on that drug is quite depressing.

Well, ok, on a serious note then, one problem with that as the only model for developing drugs is that you would only go for where the money is (or at the least more emphasis goes there). A company's true calling after all is to make money, and there's nothing wrong with that (if you don't, the company goes away, and that's bad too). However, there is more money in Viagra and Rogaine than a cure for some tropical fever, for instance. The human suffering from the fever is greater, but there's more money in good hair and a certain spring in your step, so unless your male impotency cure that fails to make sales rise or your baldness cure that leaves profits denuded cures the fever, well, the next set of trials may still be for the best drugs of those ilk and not the fever.

The full truth is more in the middle of course, but it is still an issue.

And the advertising of prescription drugs to patients (ask your doctor if enormaturgid is right for you) is an interesting development in the effort to drive sales independent of what a doctor may feel is the way to go. This is interesting in the context of recent studies that show that new drugs for depression and schizophrenia were no more effective (and in some cases less so) but more expensive than the old standards. But the new drugs get the advertising, and when the doctor fills out the script he has the patient saying "I'd like to ask you if FeelzMoreGooder is right for me"... And the doctor reaches for the free samples, and writes a script for more with the freebie pen and paper that has the logo.

One might say that ethical lines have been crossed, but on the other hand a drug company should be able to market and advertise.

Food for thought, I don't purport to have the answer.

Was this thread about sailing?

Ahhh. this thread was never about sailing!

There are drugs called "orphans" that are for very small populations of patients (like patients with odd fevers) and the company gets tax breaks for producing them as a way to compensate them. I don't think any company puposely goes out and finds a drug that will only help a small number of people but they may accidentally and the tax break may help them decide to produce it for that small number. I think there is a drug that treats ethylene glycol/methanol poisoning falls into that "orphan" class. Regular vodka works as an antidote too but it is hard to control the alcohol level in patients <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />