悲惨冷笑话
Re: 悲惨冷笑话
一般来讲新药研发从发现小分子到通过临床三期注册上市的周期为10-15年,平均烧钱1个比林,而专利也不过就20来年的样子。这个1比林也不包括为无数在预临床,临床I,临床IIA, IIB,甚至III 废掉的drug candidate投下的成本。新药的价格为什么会那么高,除了药厂作为上市公司确实要谋求利润对股东交代以外,研发成本居高不下也是一大主要原因。现在新药审批越来越严,获准上市的药分子递减,药厂的好日子已经过去了。几年前像老牌的药厂eli lily因为几个专利过期后没有主打的新药出来,财政吃紧,在美国以外几乎都不招人了。
-
- Posts: 100
- Joined: 2009-04-14 14:37
Re: 悲惨冷笑话
A few more words on Lucentis:
1. The development of Lucentis is mainly based on commercial but not scientific considerations.
2. Selling Avastin for $50 a tube to AMD patients is not economical for Genentech to invest all those money in clinical trials, and the share holders won't allow that.
3. Personally I have reservations on the pricing of Lucentis.
1. The development of Lucentis is mainly based on commercial but not scientific considerations.
2. Selling Avastin for $50 a tube to AMD patients is not economical for Genentech to invest all those money in clinical trials, and the share holders won't allow that.
3. Personally I have reservations on the pricing of Lucentis.
Re: 悲惨冷笑话
If the developement of Lucentis is mainly based on commercial, wouldn't it be an obvious mistake in management's decision to invest so much into sth that can't sell as much since there is existing product with similar result and much cheaper? Imagine someone else owns Avastin not Genentech, would Genentech still develop Lucentis? I doubt it.
有事找我请发站内消息
Re: 悲惨冷笑话
我应该像FDA雇员一样,放个disclaimer:我和Genentech没有任何关系
药厂的事是很复杂,那么多药那么多前期投入能做到II,III期的很少。现在虽然癌症药批得相对快相对而言也有improve空间,但是不好做,有的candidat在pre-clinical的时候数据非常promising,一到临床试验就不行,有时候是一个一个癌做过来(当然是从各方面考虑排过队的)。。。
Avastin去年2007的sales是2.9b,2008年应该是4b左右。我个人认为非常特别之处在于别的公司都是侧重几个cancer,先做second-line, 他们则是全线展开,迎难而上以solid tumor为主,争取first-line indication. 他们与多方合作同时展开管理临床试验的能力是很惊人的. 吃掉Genetech的Roche现在是癌症市场的老大,07年sales 12b, In contrast, Pfizer的liptor 一个(史上最强blockbuster)一年sales 12b.
药厂的事是很复杂,那么多药那么多前期投入能做到II,III期的很少。现在虽然癌症药批得相对快相对而言也有improve空间,但是不好做,有的candidat在pre-clinical的时候数据非常promising,一到临床试验就不行,有时候是一个一个癌做过来(当然是从各方面考虑排过队的)。。。

Avastin去年2007的sales是2.9b,2008年应该是4b左右。我个人认为非常特别之处在于别的公司都是侧重几个cancer,先做second-line, 他们则是全线展开,迎难而上以solid tumor为主,争取first-line indication. 他们与多方合作同时展开管理临床试验的能力是很惊人的. 吃掉Genetech的Roche现在是癌症市场的老大,07年sales 12b, In contrast, Pfizer的liptor 一个(史上最强blockbuster)一年sales 12b.
-
- Posts: 100
- Joined: 2009-04-14 14:37
Re: 悲惨冷笑话
我受不了了,咋这么多问题~~~
Avastin was developed first for indications in solid tumors. Then it is obvious that anti-VEGFA will be efficacious in AMD patients. Because it is not economical to carry out Avastin clinical trials in AMD patients, and because there are medical needs for developing a VEGFA inhibitor for AMD patients, the company came up with Lucentis. And off-lable use of Avastin in AMD patients only became popular after a successful Lucentis clinical trial. Without the Lucentis trial, it won't be clear that blocking VEGFA can heal those patients.
Is it clear now? It's not that the company is an evil one, but because it is a business. In my opinion, medical research should not be run by private companies. But then there will be a lot more problems if government runs everything.
For one, because governments control the pricing of medicines in Europe and Japan, those big pharmas can't make much money outside of USA. In other words, consumers and tax payers in US support the medical research for the world.
Avastin was developed first for indications in solid tumors. Then it is obvious that anti-VEGFA will be efficacious in AMD patients. Because it is not economical to carry out Avastin clinical trials in AMD patients, and because there are medical needs for developing a VEGFA inhibitor for AMD patients, the company came up with Lucentis. And off-lable use of Avastin in AMD patients only became popular after a successful Lucentis clinical trial. Without the Lucentis trial, it won't be clear that blocking VEGFA can heal those patients.
Is it clear now? It's not that the company is an evil one, but because it is a business. In my opinion, medical research should not be run by private companies. But then there will be a lot more problems if government runs everything.
For one, because governments control the pricing of medicines in Europe and Japan, those big pharmas can't make much money outside of USA. In other words, consumers and tax payers in US support the medical research for the world.
Last edited by Isabella2009 on 2009-08-18 12:29, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 100
- Joined: 2009-04-14 14:37
Re: 悲惨冷笑话
One more piece of information: both Avastin and Lucentis are first-in-class. Genentech was laughed at for a long time for investing on the anti-VEGFA franchise. Ten years ago people didn't believe blocking a growth factor required for tumor vessel growth could be efficacious on human cancers.
Re: 悲惨冷笑话
heavy chain of IgG antibody 有四个domain, VH,CH1, hinge, CH2, and CH3, light chain of IgG antibody 有两个domain, VL, CL, (V represents variable, C, is constant). Complete ight chain (VL, CL) paired with VH and CH1 of heavy chain is Fab (Fragment antigen binding). 最初这个fragment 是从酶消化抗体得来的。 Fab的disulfide bond 是在CL 跟CH1之间形成的, 载体表达的时候是两个片段同时表达,他们会自己形成disulfide bond. 做Fab phage display时,一般会把heavy chain 那段连到phage 表面的一个蛋白上,这样heavy chain 会表达在Phage表面,如果表达出来的light chain通过disulfide bond连到了heavy chain上, 那么这个phage的表面应该有个Fab, 这个phage应该很容易被筛出来。trinity wrote:纯技术问题: fab有light/heavy chains. 最后要crosslink with disulfide bonds. e-coli容易做么? 我听别人做fab选择的人说过, 在yeast display或phage display里, 他们都是用single chain antibody. which is fused version of heavy chain and light chain.
single chain Fv相对更容易,VL的基因跟VH的基因通过一个linker在载体里面连接, 直接表达就可以了, Pharmacia多年前就有这个kit卖。一般来说抗原结合位点就是VL和VH组成的, Fab和scFv应该在抗原结合上区别不大,不过这也就是理论,实际上怎么样,还得做到晶体那步才算确定。 heavily case by case.
至于Fab跟scFv那个好,我还真说不上来,我两个都做过不少, 结果还是很大依赖于你的靶点和筛库方法。
一个人的性格决定他的命运。
Re: 悲惨冷笑话
对,要先打点其他镇定的东西才能打这个药,不知道是不是直接往眼睛里打,估计也离的不远吧。一开始我们在聊MJ的事儿,老头说他经常用Diprivan,这药是根本不能出医院的,MJ怎么弄到的很成问题,谁给他谁得有麻烦。大家狂笑说你为什么经常要用啊,睡前用还是睡后用,老头说不用做手术,随便对眼睛干点什么,人是控制不住要反应的,所以得给上药弄的病人要不就晕了要不就特放松特快活,你对他干啥都没问题,没准压根不知道你在干啥还傻呼呼的乐呢--我马上想起笑嘻嘻家某人拔牙的故事。Jun wrote:因为要打到眼睛里。haoqing wrote:无知地问, 如果打这一针需要麻醉师和手术室和护士, 收700似乎也不算离谱吧? 不过为什么这一针这么麻烦?![]()
有事找我请发站内消息
-
- Posts: 100
- Joined: 2009-04-14 14:37
Re: 悲惨冷笑话
今天重看一遍这个话题,突然明白了在我看来一清二白的事实,为何总能引起更多的疑问。并不是所有人理解一些基本的,我以为理所当然的生物和医学常识。
anti-VEGFA可以用于癌症病人,是因为癌细胞分泌VEGFA,引发血管增生,为癌细胞的进一步繁殖提供氧气和养料。anti-VEGFA阻断了血管增生这个过程。AMD患者视力衰退,是因为眼球里血管增生,挡住了视觉感应细胞。
那么,同是anti-VEGFA,用于癌症病人和AMD病人,有什么根本不同呢?是剂量。注射于癌症病人的anti-VEGFA,随着血液循环会分布到全身。要在病灶处达到10mg/Kg的浓度,一个60Kg的病人,一次需注射600mg。AMD病人则是直接注射到眼球里。眼球与血液循环系统并不相通,一次只需注射0.5mg。
问题在于,一管600mg的Avastin卖2000美元,那一管0.5mg的Avastin 是不是应该只卖2美元呢?当然不是。药物的成本和剂量关系很小,而取决于研发特别是临床实验的成本。Lucentis的定价,也主要是由临床实验的成本决定的。
一管0.5mg的Avastin本身当然不值什么钱。小K你不妨去问问那个眼科医生,如果不是Lucentis临床实验摸索出剂量和注射方法,他敢不敢自己拿着个Avastin就给病人注射? 从理论上说,Avastin在AMD患者中应该是有效的,可是没有临床实验,谁又敢打包票呢?
那么Lucentis定价多少才合理呢?就算是定为200美元一管,肯定还是会有人把Avastin分装来卖给眼科医生。这就是Genentech所面对的难题。
好了,我为老东家说的话够多了,该自动消失了。
When you don't understand the other side, it's much easier to claim them evil or stupid than to go out and learn the whole story.
anti-VEGFA可以用于癌症病人,是因为癌细胞分泌VEGFA,引发血管增生,为癌细胞的进一步繁殖提供氧气和养料。anti-VEGFA阻断了血管增生这个过程。AMD患者视力衰退,是因为眼球里血管增生,挡住了视觉感应细胞。
那么,同是anti-VEGFA,用于癌症病人和AMD病人,有什么根本不同呢?是剂量。注射于癌症病人的anti-VEGFA,随着血液循环会分布到全身。要在病灶处达到10mg/Kg的浓度,一个60Kg的病人,一次需注射600mg。AMD病人则是直接注射到眼球里。眼球与血液循环系统并不相通,一次只需注射0.5mg。
问题在于,一管600mg的Avastin卖2000美元,那一管0.5mg的Avastin 是不是应该只卖2美元呢?当然不是。药物的成本和剂量关系很小,而取决于研发特别是临床实验的成本。Lucentis的定价,也主要是由临床实验的成本决定的。
一管0.5mg的Avastin本身当然不值什么钱。小K你不妨去问问那个眼科医生,如果不是Lucentis临床实验摸索出剂量和注射方法,他敢不敢自己拿着个Avastin就给病人注射? 从理论上说,Avastin在AMD患者中应该是有效的,可是没有临床实验,谁又敢打包票呢?
那么Lucentis定价多少才合理呢?就算是定为200美元一管,肯定还是会有人把Avastin分装来卖给眼科医生。这就是Genentech所面对的难题。
好了,我为老东家说的话够多了,该自动消失了。
When you don't understand the other side, it's much easier to claim them evil or stupid than to go out and learn the whole story.
Last edited by Isabella2009 on 2009-08-21 11:57, edited 1 time in total.
Re: 悲惨冷笑话
Isabella2009 wrote: 一管0.5mg的Avastin本身当然不值什么钱。小K你不妨去问问那个眼科医生,如果不是Lucentis临床实验摸索出剂量和注射方法,他敢不敢自己拿着个Avastin就给病人注射? 从理论上说,Avastin在AMD患者中应该是有效的,可是没有临床实验,谁又敢打包票呢?
那么Lucentis定价多少才合理呢?就算是定为200美元一管,肯定还是会有人把Avastin分装来卖给眼科医生。这就是Genentech所面对的难题。
When you don't understand the other side, it's much easier to claim them evil than to go out and learn the whole story.
听说Avastin off label use 是某医生发现的,跟Lucentis 的发明没关系,时间也差不多。而且如果它们不是一种东西,lucentis 临床实验出来的剂量能照搬到avastin 上用么?I could be wrong. what do I know.
我没觉得Lucentis 定价高本身是evil ,只能说不够精明。至于后面genentech 动用多种宣传手段促销Lucentis,甚至威胁不卖avastin给眼科医生,就比较那啥了。
有事找我请发站内消息
-
- Posts: 100
- Joined: 2009-04-14 14:37
Re: 悲惨冷笑话
Genentech当然知道Avastin在AMD患者中很可能有效,一开始搞Lucentis就是因为定价的问题。Lucentis的临床实验结果出来了,别的眼科医生一看当然就照搬到稀释的Avastin上。这时候Lucentis还在FDA等批准呢。时间的先后顺序和因果关系应该很清楚了吧。
前面说过,我本人不赞同Lucentis的定价。事实上,公司内部开会时,也总有人问这个事儿。然而在商言商,就Genentech而言也没有什么特别好的办法。
我认为问题的核心是医疗事业的知识产权有其独特性,因为牵涉到人民健康问题,就关系到道德和社会安定而不仅仅是利润和产出比了。所以我认为医学研究应该作为公共事业由政府支持而不是作为盈利事业。但是由政府支持的事业,怎样保持竞争性和独立性呢?所得到得利益又怎样分配才合理呢?制药业发展到现在,出现一个很大的瓶颈,新药研发越来越难,成本越来越高,周期越来越长。我以为这种Business Model需要重大调整了。
话说了这么多,我的态度很明确了,真是没有必要再来废话了。
前面说过,我本人不赞同Lucentis的定价。事实上,公司内部开会时,也总有人问这个事儿。然而在商言商,就Genentech而言也没有什么特别好的办法。
我认为问题的核心是医疗事业的知识产权有其独特性,因为牵涉到人民健康问题,就关系到道德和社会安定而不仅仅是利润和产出比了。所以我认为医学研究应该作为公共事业由政府支持而不是作为盈利事业。但是由政府支持的事业,怎样保持竞争性和独立性呢?所得到得利益又怎样分配才合理呢?制药业发展到现在,出现一个很大的瓶颈,新药研发越来越难,成本越来越高,周期越来越长。我以为这种Business Model需要重大调整了。
话说了这么多,我的态度很明确了,真是没有必要再来废话了。
Re: 悲惨冷笑话
我是觉得比平时看病贵。首先一次救护车大概是1000。这个平时没有,没可比性。从他们出发到他们回到station,大概一个小时。救护车的cost真有这么高么?还是像Jun说的,有的其他人用救护车不付钱,他们就只好提价了。(不过必须说救护车还是来得很快的,我作为家长真是放心不少。)其次平时x-ray,尿检,血检的,加在一起我估计有700,800。ER就要到1700左右。难道越小的孩子x-ray也越贵?豪情 wrote:为什么人人都说ER贵呢? 我没觉得和普通的差别太大.
"People don’t choose between things, they choose between descriptions of things" by kanhneman
Re: 悲惨冷笑话
当然不是移民的首选. 如果有CONNECTION的话推荐进那几个头牌军校也不坏. 即使不进那些学校, 我有同事是后备役, 包了大学学费, 每年集训, 公司都得给假期. 在军队里的职位也很高了.
小美也不用代入那么快, 别人的家事, 别人的选择, 操心那么多干嘛. 人人一样多无趣. 自从我搬到这里来, 觉得最无趣的就是大家太同一化了, 同一有好处也有坏处. 好处是学习借鉴援引多一些, 坏处是, 人人都理所当然假设你和别人就该一样, 读一样的书, 干一样的工作, 买一样的股票, 看一样的医生, 吃一样的馆子, 生一到两个孩子,买一样的房子, 送同一个学校和兴趣班.
小美也不用代入那么快, 别人的家事, 别人的选择, 操心那么多干嘛. 人人一样多无趣. 自从我搬到这里来, 觉得最无趣的就是大家太同一化了, 同一有好处也有坏处. 好处是学习借鉴援引多一些, 坏处是, 人人都理所当然假设你和别人就该一样, 读一样的书, 干一样的工作, 买一样的股票, 看一样的医生, 吃一样的馆子, 生一到两个孩子,买一样的房子, 送同一个学校和兴趣班.
谁道闲情抛掷久?每到春来,惆怅还依旧。
Re: 悲惨冷笑话
那是有保险的好处了。豪情 wrote:我自己只上过一次ER, 自己去的, 血检,单人病房吊水四小时观察, 医生检查,129.
没保险的人看病吃药,一色一样的服务,要交给医院多少多少钱;保险公司付,只给一半或者更少。保险公司“欺负”医院,医院掉过头“欺负”没保险的现金病人。如果没保险的病人身无分文,医院只好自己吞下去,掉头问政府要,政府再掉头从纳税人头上刮。恶性循环。结果只有两个选择,要么大家一起从保险开始分担并且强行控制价格,要么把没保险又负担不起的人赶出门让他们死在大街上。否则都是自欺欺人。
一个人在

此喵已死,有事烧纸
Re: 悲惨冷笑话
Now that health care reform has gone the way of Sen. Kennedy, this analysis came out today in Health Affairs:
Link to the original article: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/co ... .28.5.w969new analysis of 20 years of data contradicts previously published claims that United States pharmaceutical companies are better innovators than their European counterparts, and questions whether Americans actually benefit from the higher prices they pay for many prescription medications. The re-analysis by Donald W. Light, PhD, a professor of social medicine and comparative health systems at the UMDNJ-School of Osteopathic medicine, appears in the current Health Affairs-web exclusive.
The study shows that, dollar for dollar, European pharmaceutical researchers outdo their American colleagues in "innovative performance or the introduction of first-in-class, biotech, and orphan products," a finding that could have enormous implications for the current debate over the cost of reforming health care in the United States.
It is widely believed that the United States has eclipsed Europe in pharmaceutical research productivity. Some leading analysts claim that although fewer drugs have been discovered worldwide over the past decade, most are therapeutically important. Yet a comprehensive data set of all new chemical entities approved between 1982 and 2003 shows that the United States never overtook Europe in research productivity, and that Europe in fact is pulling ahead of U.S. productivity. Other large studies show that most new drugs add few if any clinical benefits over previously discovered drugs.
此喵已死,有事烧纸
-
- Posts: 100
- Joined: 2009-04-14 14:37
Re: 悲惨冷笑话
这种阻碍血管功能的药负作用还是很大的,在癌症患者以外大剂量使用的可能性不大。前段时间去开行业大会,Genentech的几个报告水平都很高。的确是企业里研究做得最好的。 
