Pharmaceutical Company rip off?

[the_bloke]

There are loads of drugs out there, from aspirin (cheap) to aricept (v. Expensive originally) that are used to treat diseases they weren't originally designed for.

 

Apirin is well off patent (expired 1917) and is so generic every pharma company and his dog make it. Due to it's age it's never been subject to the strict regulations imposed on new drugs.

 

Aricept (Donepezil) is designed and approved for Alzheimer's disease and has since also been approved for treating dementia. Anything else is off label. It's still under patent.

 

Be interested to know what Aricept is being prescribed for in the UK, as it's only approved for Alzheimers by the NICE?

[altus]

Avastin was not created for nor has been tested by Roche for eye treatment. Without them certifying themselves that it works, they aren't going to put forward an application to the Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.

 

Any testing of Avastin to treat eyes is being performed by a third party, who won't have the resources and knowledge of Roche to confirm it works. Drug testing is a process that takes years and many millions of pounds, Roche can't just decide on a whim to change it's use to include eyes without many more years research.

 

So it's not about the pharma companies 'refusing permission' at all, it's about them not putting forward a drug to be used in a way it wasn't designed or tested to be used.

 

Have Roche released all their trials data for Avastin? For all we know they may some results that show it could be useful for treating wet AMD but hadn't taken it forward because they had a new, more profitable, drug (Lucentis) in the pipeline. Roche are the company that didn't release trials data showing Tamiflu was ineffective until after much pressure from the Cochrane Collaboration and long after our government had spend hundreds of millions of £s on it - for that reason I'm suspicious of their motives.

[tinfoilhat]

Apirin is well off patent (expired 1917) and is so generic every pharma company and his dog make it. Due to it's age it's never been subject to the strict regulations imposed on new drugs.

 

Aricept (Donepezil) is designed and approved for Alzheimer's disease and has since also been approved for treating dementia. Anything else is off label. It's still under patent.

 

Be interested to know what Aricept is being prescribed for in the UK, as it's only approved for Alzheimers by the NICE?

 

It's prescribed for Alzheimer's in the UK but it was developed as a heart drug (or blood pressure - I forget the specifics). The Alzheimer's thing was a happy accident. It won't be prescribed for heart conditions, there are plenty of cheaper alternatives available and aricept is expensive. I don't know about other countries prescribing it.

[Anna B]

If you think its wrong to profit from illness, wouldn't you say the same as companies they profit from selling food? Or providing energy for warmth in the winter?

 

There's profit and then there's profiteering.

 

I would venture that, like many things in this day and age, drug companies have now gone past perfectly acceptable profit and slipped into profiteering - simply because they can.

[Obelix]

And your proof for this would be?

[the_bloke]

Have Roche released all their trials data for Avastin? For all we know they may some results that show it could be useful for treating wet AMD but hadn't taken it forward because they had a new, more profitable, drug (Lucentis) in the pipeline. Roche are the company that didn't release trials data showing Tamiflu was ineffective until after much pressure from the Cochrane Collaboration and long after our government had spend hundreds of millions of £s on it - for that reason I'm suspicious of their motives.

 

Why would they? They have no obligation to release their research to anyone apart from the appropriate regulatory bodies. Should all large organisations spend millions on R&D just to put the research into the public domain before getting their costs back?

 

Without profits, the next drug in the pipeline won't exist.

[MAC33]

This is a very good article that helps exposé the rip off.

 

1000 dollars a pill---- yet they are prepared to sell the same pill to India for 10 or 20 dollars.

 

These exorbitant prices are ripping off the taxpayer.

 

 

http://www.sott.net/article/294634-India-is-making-the-US-look-like-the-worlds-fools-when-it-comes-to-prescription-drugs

[Guest sibon]

 

These exorbitant prices are ripping off the taxpayer.

 

Or funding the next generation of medicines.

 

Depending upon whether you understand the pharmaceutical industry, or not.

[Anna B]

Or funding the next generation of medicines.

 

Depending upon whether you understand the pharmaceutical industry, or not.

 

I understand that people in this country are going without lifesaving treatment because the cost of the necessary drugs is prohibitive.

[Bonzo77]

Pharmaceutical Companies invest a great deal of money in research and development, (as long as it promises profits - they don't go in for researching the Cinderella illnesses...) but they still make massive profits and are amongst the highest earners on the stock markets. Have they now reached the stage where they are profiteering on illness?

 

Take for instance the case of the disease, Macula Degeneration, a relatively common eye illness that can lead to blindness without treatment.

 

At the moment it is treated with Lucentis, which costs about £700 per treatment. However it's been found that Avastin, a cancer drug, works just as well but is priced at £60 per treatment.

 

The Pharma Companies are refusing the NHS permission to use the cheaper drug to protect its profits on Lucentis. Is this right?

 

Many drugs are now prohibitivly expensive and outside the pocket of our struggling NHS. Who decides on the value of a drug, and what is a reasonable retail price? Are the drug companies being fair, or is it all just about profits?

 

They're private companies, with share holders, so yes, it's ALL about profits.

 

On top of that, this government wants to privatise the NHS. One of the methods they use to gain support for privatisation, is to make it look like it's struggling. There's enough money available to make the NHS thrive.

 

---------- Post added 04-04-2015 at 07:24 ----------

 

If you think its wrong to profit from illness, wouldn't you say the same as companies they profit from selling food? Or providing energy for warmth in the winter?

 

Energy, yes. Energy markets should be regulated, or made public.

 

Food is a bit different.