Pfizer had clues its blockbuster drug could prevent Alzheimer’s. Why didn’t it tell the world?

[Jaybee00]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...fc796cf2ec0_story.html?utm_term=.1418de0736c6

Not ME/CFS, but provides an overview of the difficulty of new drug development or rather getting approval for an existing drug to treat a different condition.

 

[Jaybee00]

Well not totally not ME/CFS. Enbrel (etanercept) is one part of the two drug combo proposed by Nancy Klimas to treat ME/CFS.

 

[Alvin]

None of this makes any real sense. They could have extended the patent if it worked, 80 million is a lot to us but not them, the patent system is far more broken then the article would have us believe and is not the best way to to make this work.
Why they did it is an unanswered question, their statements are unrealistic.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am not surprised that they did not tell the world. Enbrel is hugely expensive, causes serious side effects including disseminated tuberculosis and death and a high proportion of people become resistant to it over a fairly short period. It sounds like one of the more sensible decisions from a drug company.

 

[BurnA]

I am not surprised that they did not tell the world. Enbrel is hugely expensive, causes serious side effects including disseminated tuberculosis and death and a high proportion of people become resistant to it over a fairly short period. It sounds like one of the more sensible decisions from a drug company.

I don't follow...

Hugely expensive means more profits, hardly a valid reason for them not to tell anyone?

Also, while the side effects you list are indeed serious, if it is approved for arthritis, then these should not be more of an issue for alzheimers?

I would wager that the main reason is they just didn't think it was a profitable venture.
That is the single biggest driver for most (all?) big pharma decisions.

 

[Diluted-biscuit]

I don't follow...

Hugely expensive means more profits, hardly a valid reason for them not to tell anyone?

Not if it’s too expensive for anyone to afford

 

[BurnA]

Not if it’s too expensive for anyone to afford

It's a blockbuster for arthritis. I doubt many pay for it out of their own pocket.

Drug companies set the price based on what they think they can charge, to make them the most profit, not on what it costs to manufacture.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

Hugely expensive means more profits, hardly a valid reason for them not to tell anyone?

It does not mean more profits if it causes an epidemic of fatal disseminated TB while waiting the fifteen years for there to be any effect on reducing the rate of Alzheimer's.

Roche was very wary of developing rituximab for RA because they had a nice earner in lymphoma, where the odd death did not matter too much, and they did not want people with non-fatal illnesses getting lethal side effects and spoiling the cancer market.

In fact the first people to make an anti-TNF like Enbrel did not even want to develop it for RA, it had so many red flags. It was only because Ravinder Maini and Mark Feldman decided to try it that the drug companies had to take interest.