Why are drug companies allowed to play dirty?
Question by J.B. Holiday: Why are drug companies allowed to play dirty?
Study Outcome Won’t Sway Company On Eye Drug
WASHINGTON – What does a company do when there’s anecdotal evidence that two of its drugs are equally effective in treating a leading cause of blindness in the elderly, one costing patients $ 60 per treatment and the other $ 2,000?
In the case of Genentech Inc., nothing.
The company declined to seek federal approval for the cheaper drug, Avastin, to treat the wet form of age-related macular degeneration. Nor would it help finance — or cooperate with — a National Eye Institute study comparing the effectiveness and safety of Avastin, a cancer drug, and the more expensive eye drug, Lucentis.
The financial stakes stemming from the study are huge. Medicare officials estimate there could be 50,000 or more additional cases of macular degeneration a year. Treating just one year’s worth of new patients with Lucentis would cost $ 1.2 billion a year, compared with $ 60 million if they’re treated with Avastin, Medicare officials said.
Genentech is making no promises that it will act upon the trial’s final results, which are expected in two to three years.
The company has raised concerns that safety issues were not properly addressed. In particular, the trial doesn’t have enough patients to show some of the rare but serious side effects that could occur with use of the cheaper drug, the company contends.
“No matter the outcome, we continue to believe Lucentis is the most appropriate treatment for wet AMD,” said Krysta Pellegrino, a company spokeswoman.
Wet AMD occurs when abnormal blood vessels leak blood and fluid affecting the part of the eye that allows you to see fine detail.
Many eye doctors believe Avastin works just as well in treating macular degeneration even though it hasn’t been approved for that purpose. It’s not unusual for drugs to be used off-label — treating diseases other than ones the drug was approved for.
Both drugs target a protein that causes blood vessels in the back of the eye to grow, but Lucentis is a much smaller molecule. It was specifically designed — at great expense — to penetrate the retina.
Genentech routinely provides financial support for clinical trials, Pellegrino said in an interview. But in this case, she said, “Our resources would be better spent looking at other diseases where there are no treatments.
Dr. Philip Rosenfeld, who has treated hundreds of his eye patients in South Florida with Avastin, said Genentech had little economic incentive to help finance the trial — unless it was confident Lucentis was truly superior.
“By fact that they didn’t support the clinical study leads me to conclude that in reality there is no difference between the two drugs,” Rosenfeld said. “The result is clearly not in Genentech’s best interest.”
Avastin was approved to treat colon cancer in February 2004. It’s a genetically engineered product that inhibits the growth of blood vessels, thus denying tumors blood, oxygen and other nutrients needed for growth. It’s expensive, costing $ 2,200 for a typical treatment for colon cancer. However, for treating eye disease, pharmacy compounding firms split the drug into many tiny doses suitable for injection into the eye. That’s what brings the price down to about $ 60 per injection.
“It took decades and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop the drug,” she said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080827/ap_on_he_me/med_eye_drugs;_ylt=AnH0UTjx5w3B0wMhFpFI5acDW7oF
Best answer:
Answer by Rainbow Love76
What the (BLEEP!) O’brother O’Reilly! Things get more and more bogus….
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!