EPTOn June 23 2011 17:33 Hepsabarb wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
To those saying that the cost of the drug should be lowered, I'm here to tell you that the majority of the cost is actually related to the production of the drug, not the R&D that went in to it.
The drug type is called a humanised monoclonal antibody. Humanised monoclonals are a relatively new drug and are all really expensive. Some being used now are Avastin for cancer and Humira for a number of inflammatory disorders. These 2 drugs alone make around $10Billion in sales a year so the cost associated with production is a major area of research. Basically these drugs stick to the protein that are causing the problem and inhibit its activity. There are 2 reasons why it is expensive.
Firstly, to design and make a humanised monoclonal is not easy, it is basically a very complex molecule that is engineered to stick only to the target protein. These drugs are not like antibiotics which are mostly relatively simple molecules that can be mass produced. It involves pretty complicated genetic manipulation to produce a gene for the antibody and subsequent cloning into live cells that then produce the antibody. Keeping the cells alive/recovering and purifying the antibody is then another expensive process.
The second problem is the amount and frequency the antibody is required to be given. Because the antibody works by binding to the protein causing the problem, as the body produces more of the problem protein, more antibody needs to be administered to block its activity. C5 (the protein causing the problem here) is produced relatively quickly and in great abundance in the blood so this drug needs to be given often and in high quantities.
Together this is what makes the drug expensive.
To put this into the bigger picture, there are many drugs like this, currently very expensive to make but can have some pretty amazing effects. What has happened in quite a few fields is that scientists have become really good at identifying very specific problems that occur in diseases and awesome ways to fix those very specific problems. However, what happens is that less and less people fall into the specific categories. This means the market for the really specific drugs is much smaller. With time and research the costs of production will come down and the drugs will be more available, its just such a shame that some people are in a race for their lives until this happens.
Edit: I just did some calculations of how much it would cost me to make and purify enough antibody if i had the antibody producing cells given to me (the bit that takes years of research by drug companies).
23.4g is the annual amount required
it costs me ~60$ to make 1mg of Ab
$60 x 23400 = $1.4 million
Obviously drug companies benefit from economies of scale but you get the idea.
To those saying that the cost of the drug should be lowered, I'm here to tell you that the majority of the cost is actually related to the production of the drug, not the R&D that went in to it.
The drug type is called a humanised monoclonal antibody. Humanised monoclonals are a relatively new drug and are all really expensive. Some being used now are Avastin for cancer and Humira for a number of inflammatory disorders. These 2 drugs alone make around $10Billion in sales a year so the cost associated with production is a major area of research. Basically these drugs stick to the protein that are causing the problem and inhibit its activity. There are 2 reasons why it is expensive.
Firstly, to design and make a humanised monoclonal is not easy, it is basically a very complex molecule that is engineered to stick only to the target protein. These drugs are not like antibiotics which are mostly relatively simple molecules that can be mass produced. It involves pretty complicated genetic manipulation to produce a gene for the antibody and subsequent cloning into live cells that then produce the antibody. Keeping the cells alive/recovering and purifying the antibody is then another expensive process.
The second problem is the amount and frequency the antibody is required to be given. Because the antibody works by binding to the protein causing the problem, as the body produces more of the problem protein, more antibody needs to be administered to block its activity. C5 (the protein causing the problem here) is produced relatively quickly and in great abundance in the blood so this drug needs to be given often and in high quantities.
Together this is what makes the drug expensive.
To put this into the bigger picture, there are many drugs like this, currently very expensive to make but can have some pretty amazing effects. What has happened in quite a few fields is that scientists have become really good at identifying very specific problems that occur in diseases and awesome ways to fix those very specific problems. However, what happens is that less and less people fall into the specific categories. This means the market for the really specific drugs is much smaller. With time and research the costs of production will come down and the drugs will be more available, its just such a shame that some people are in a race for their lives until this happens.
Edit: I just did some calculations of how much it would cost me to make and purify enough antibody if i had the antibody producing cells given to me (the bit that takes years of research by drug companies).
23.4g is the annual amount required
it costs me ~60$ to make 1mg of Ab
$60 x 23400 = $1.4 million
Obviously drug companies benefit from economies of scale but you get the idea.
^^ This is good post worth reading. I hope people realise there is a reason these drugs are so expensive.
On June 23 2011 18:59 Roflhaxx wrote:
Cus a cure for cancer/aids would be so horrible..
Cus a cure for cancer/aids would be so horrible..
The intersting thing about "Duty to Rescue" also known as "Rule of Rescue" is that it is up to the purchasers to follow, not the companies. It is simple economics really, if the purcahsers won't pay for drugs that saves lives, then there is no incentive to research them.
As mentioned previously, some countries (Australia for one and I am pretty sure the FDA has similar provisions), has a rule where drugs that treat illness with very low incidence get priority review. In Aus, what this means is that if the medication treats less than 2000 patients, in other words the disease is rare, the review for reimbursement is stipulated at less than 6 months. This is a clear incentive to investigate rare disease cures as getting to market early effectively extends the patent.
