Slashdot Mirror
Goldman Sachs Asks: 'Is Curing Patients a Sustainable Business Model?' (cnbc.com)
Goldman Sachs analysts attempted to address a touchy subject for biotech companies, especially those involved in the pioneering "gene therapy" treatment: cures could be bad for business in the long run. "Is curing patients a sustainable business model?" analysts ask in an April 10 report entitled "The Genome Revolution." From a report: "The potential to deliver 'one shot cures' is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies," analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients Tuesday. "While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow."
Richter cited Gilead Sciences' treatments for hepatitis C, which achieved cure rates of more than 90 percent. The company's U.S. sales for these hepatitis C treatments peaked at $12.5 billion in 2015, but have been falling ever since. Goldman estimates the U.S. sales for these treatments will be less than $4 billion this year, according to a table in the report. "GILD is a case in point, where the success of its hepatitis C franchise has gradually exhausted the available pool of treatable patients," the analyst wrote.
Richter cited Gilead Sciences' treatments for hepatitis C, which achieved cure rates of more than 90 percent. The company's U.S. sales for these hepatitis C treatments peaked at $12.5 billion in 2015, but have been falling ever since. Goldman estimates the U.S. sales for these treatments will be less than $4 billion this year, according to a table in the report. "GILD is a case in point, where the success of its hepatitis C franchise has gradually exhausted the available pool of treatable patients," the analyst wrote.
Curing something does not mean you won't sell the same cure to the same person again. Just because you cured HepC, hell, even curing AIDS in a person does not mean they can't get infected again and need your cure again.
The number of diseases that grant lifetime immunity to it after you survived it once is fairly low.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As opposed to the rest of the 1st world countries which manage to have affordable and working health care systems. Canada, France, UK etc all have single payer systems with working hospitals and better health outcomes at a fraction of the price.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
50 year Type 1 diabetic here.
> Insulin has changed significantly over the years
The purity improved drastically since its discovery in 1921, which is how animal source insulins became safer and less likely to cause sensitivities, basically allergies, that reduced their effectiveness profoundly. The patent for insulin itself was made public domain by its inventor. The release of "human" insulin, and the patents for making it, were an effective attempt to get new patents, not to provide medical benefit from a natural chemical which cannot be patented. There seems to be no measurable medical benefit to the human insulin molecule over animal sources, and there are some reports of medical deficits with it.
The folks at Novo are always *really excited* by the insulins. But the short acting human insulin only replaces the older regular insulin, and its speed of action is overwhelmed by the modern glucometer use and by the quick action of delivering insulin with an insulin pump. The longer acting human insulin based Lantus simply replaces NPH or UltraLente, older and cheaper ways to make insulin last longer. There is *zero* net benefit from the modern human insulins over the older and vastly cheaper animal based insulins. Using e. coli to make insulin doesn't actually improve it in any measurable way.
> The newest generation of insulin is far safer and more effective than the stuff being made back in the 1930s.
That is a false equivalency. Compared to the 1930's sure. Improvements in insulin effectively ceased in the 1970's with the last upgrade to "U-100" concentrations of insulin. The developments for insulin since then have been like the "new" and "improved" labels on detergent, or like marking farmer's market produce as "non-GMO". Very exciting and an excuse to charge more, but involving no useful change in the product and likely untrue.
Yes, the "human" insulins were exciting. But using the human rather than the animal insulins has no demonstrable medical benefit, and costs roughly 10 times as much. Insulin is *grotesquely* expensive due to the captive market and the basically fraudulent "upgrades" over the last 30 years.. A classic example of drug companies continuing to blow smoke up our asses is seen at the "article" at https://www.adwdiabetes.com/ar.... I've not seen such a nonsensical puff piece since Sarah Palin campaigned for Trump.