Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

New Medicines Are Coming To Slow

Lewis

Member
The Obama administration has become so concerned about the slowing pace of new drugs coming out of the pharmaceutical industry that officials have decided to start a billion-dollar government drug development center to help create medicines.

The new effort comes as many large drug makers, unable to find enough new drugs, are paring back research. Promising discoveries in illnesses like depression and Parkinson’s that once would have led to clinical trials are instead going unexplored because companies have neither the will nor the resources to undertake the effort.
The initial financing of the government’s new drug center is relatively small compared with the $45.8 billion that the industry estimates it invested in research in 2009. The cost of bringing a single drug to market can exceed $1 billion, according to some estimates, and drug companies have typically spent twice as much on marketing as on research, a business model that is increasingly suspect.
The National Institutes of Health has traditionally focused on basic research, such as describing the structure of proteins, leaving industry to create drugs using those compounds. But the drug industry’s research productivity has been declining for 15 years, “and it certainly doesn’t show any signs of turning upward,†said Dr. Francis S. Collins, director of the institutes.
The job of the new center, to be called the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, is akin to that of a home seller who spruces up properties to attract buyers in a down market. In this case the center will do as much research as it needs to do so that it can attract drug company investment.
That means that in some cases, the center will use one of the institutes’ four new robotic screeners to find chemicals that affect enzymes and might lead to the development of a drug or a cure. In other cases, the center may need to not only discover the right chemicals but also perform animal tests to ensure that they are safe and even start human trials to see if they work. All of that has traditionally been done by drug companies, not the government.
“None of this is intended to be competitive with the private sector,†Dr. Collins said. “The hope would be that any project that reaches the point of commercial appeal would be moved out of the academic support line and into the private sector.â€
Whether the government can succeed where private industry has failed is uncertain, officials acknowledge, but they say doing nothing is not an option. The health and human services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, sent a letter to Congress on Jan. 14 outlining the plan to open the new drug center by October — an unusually rapid turnaround for an idea first released with little fanfare in December.
Creating the center is a signature effort of Dr. Collins, who once directed the agency’s Human Genome Project. Dr. Collins has been predicting for years that gene sequencing will lead to a vast array of new treatments, but years of effort and tens of billions of dollars in financing by drug makers in gene-related research has largely been a bust.
As a result, industry has become far less willing to follow the latest genetic advances with expensive clinical trials. Rather than wait longer, Dr. Collins has decided that the government can start the work itself.
“I am a little frustrated to see how many of the discoveries that do look as though they have therapeutic implications are waiting for the pharmaceutical industry to follow through with them,†he said.
Dr. Collins’s ability to conceive and create such a center in a few short months would have been impossible for most of his predecessors, who had nice offices but little power. But Congress in recent years has invested real budgetary and administrative authority in the director’s office, and Dr. Collins is the first to fully use these new powers.
Under the plan, more than $700 million in research projects already under way at various institutes and centers would be brought together at the new center. But officials hope that the prospect of finding new drugs will lure Congress into increasing the center’s financing well beyond $1 billion.
Hopes of new money may be optimistic. Republicans in the House have promised to cut the kind of discretionary domestic spending that supports the health institutes, and officials are already bracing for significant cuts this year. But Dr. Collins has hinted that he is willing to cannibalize other parts of the health institutes to bring more resources to the new center.



See more of this article here
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/health/policy/23drug.html?_r=1&ref=health
 
I worked in bio-tech research for about 10 years. Everything unraveled when Vioxx (Merck) was yanked from the market around 2002. The FDA was accused of approving drugs before safety was adequately established, and the pendulum swung in the other direction. From that point on, they have been in ultra-self-defense mode. The FDA is still wrought with conflicts of interest, IMO. The whole process for medicine approval needs to be overhauled.

Managed Care is also driving the research down. It's rough for pharma companies to get name brand medicines approved by managed care and hospital formulary committees with so many generics addressing the same diseases at a fraction of the cost. Unless a novel method of action is demonstrated by a new molecule and insurance companies are forced to pay for them, pharma and bio-tech companies lose a lot of money in bringing a new drug to market. I don't see anything wrong with this in whole, but certain individuals who would fare better on new and unique drugs are the ones losing out. The big picture is that there will continue to be less risks taken by drug manufacturers in researching molecules for niche diseases, because they won't have that blockbuster payoff.
 
Well Mike I am a proud Republican American, so you know that I love this country, but it's health care system is behind and I don't like it. Reason' because it is all about money in this country no matter how great the need, if the people don't have the money they will let you die in this country, in a lot of countries everybody gets health care and medications. We have big medication companies who think money first before they really think about the lives of the American people. It is all about a buck in the American medical system. And the prices of medication are just plain out of this world. Many in this country tried to get medicine from Canada because it is cheaper, but the USA a had a fit over that. My thing is many of the people including the elderly could not and can not afford these through the roof prices for medication. Companies like Smith Klien & Beecham think profit first. And their motto is If They Can't Come Up With The Money, Let Them Die. And Managed Care or HMO's has messed up the country and is the cause of many, many, many, many, many deaths. Their are medications that HMO's won't even cover and because of it sometimes the people die. And now more than anytime in history the big companies will not research for curing medications unless a profit can be seen.
 
lewis the military health care system isnt much better.

i know that you are aware of that.yes the hmos and pharmas are greedy.

but the govt does ration too.
 
Lewis, you had a number of touchpoints in that comment. I'll respond to some things that stood out to me. Up until the FDA shifted its posture and began to act in self-defense, things have been spiraling downward, IMO. Until that point, you had an free market economy that drove research to the point that 99% of all new molecule discoveries were occurring in the U.S. Pharmaceuticals was a monster, but that monster happened to be fed and rewarded for breakthrough research. It wasn't the best system, but in the end, pharma companies took risks, got rewards, and new medicines were brought to market all the time. Not that pharma companies are truly philanthropic, but they did do much for the world and the U.S.'s poor citizens. Emergency relief medicine was donated and shipped by the billions to areas of the world in crisis, and most of them (if not all) had programs in place to provide free medicine to indigent Americans. But you can't donate what you can't get approved. Many medicines are approved in Europe but not in the U.S. ever since Vioxx-Gate. As a result, U.S. citizens suffer.

Sure pharma companies charge a lot for medicines, but that's usually to recover billions of dollars spent on researching molecules that never make it through the approval process. A very small (and getting smaller) number of molecules make it from discovery to the pharmacy because the FDA stands in the way in self-protect mode. In order to stay in business in today's environment, companies need a blockbuster drug. If they don't get one, they're finding it necessary to merge with other companies. This creates less competition, and less competition means less incentive to do the research and bear the financial burden of driving a drug through the approval process.

IMO, the best thing to do is replace the archaic FDA with a non-partisan board, and get back to rewarding pharma companies. People may not like seeing them get the big bucks, but it's in giving them the incentive that they will be compelled to do what they did for the past century: research and discover.
 
Back
Top