Study outcome won't sway company on eye drug

[Celebration]

http://www.physorg.com/news139064888.html

What does a company do when there's anecdotal evidence that two of its drugs are equally effective in treating a leading cause of blindness in the elderly, one costing patients $60 per treatment and the other $2,000? In the case of Genentech Inc., nothing.

The company declined to seek federal approval for the cheaper drug, Avastin, to treat the wet form of age-related macular degeneration. Nor would it help finance - or cooperate with - a National Eye Institute study comparing the effectiveness and safety of Avastin, a cancer drug, and the more expensive eye drug, Lucentis.

The financial stakes stemming from the study are huge. Medicare officials estimate there could be 50,000 or more additional cases of macular degeneration a year. Treating just one year's worth of new patients with Lucentis would cost $1.2 billion a year, compared with $60 million if they're treated with Avastin, Medicare officials said.

Genentech is making no promises that it will act upon the trial's final results, which are expected in two to three years.

[Avalux]

1. Then their patent needs to be yanked so a generic can be marketed.

This is something I will push for because it happens often.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

2. thats just plain wrong

it makes me sick when I stand behind a senior citizen at the drug store, and
they have hit their "donut hole" and have to plunk down cold hard cash for their meds.

And its horrible that our govt will pay for unneccessary medicines with dubvious value
when people who can't afford this medicine will lose their vision.

[CountAllVotes]

3. Lucentis v. Avastin

They don't bother to say that Lucentis involves injections into the eye itself which I would think is quite uncomfortable at best. I find this sickening that they won't consider Avastin which likely is not injected directly into the eyeball from what little I know about it other than the fact the cost is a whole lot less.

Someone close to me has wet AMD. It stole the sight of one eye basically overnight! Said person is on Medicare and has a supplemental plan that costs $4,000.00 a year in addition to the monthly cost of Medicare itself (another ~$100.00). Medicare is NOT FREE kids and it does NOT cover these treatments (the supplemental policy does cover them but what a huge cost for this not to mention the amount of financial and other stressors it puts the person under!).

These drug companies (Genentech in this case) are so damn greedy it is sickening! :mad: :argh:

:kick:

[Cairycat]

10. Avastin IS injected for wet MD

I have wet macular degeneration. When I was diagnosed, my insurance co. didn't want to pay at all for treatment. Genentech kind of strong-armed them into paying for me (ins. co said "pre-existing condition, as though I could diagnose myself :eyes:) so Genentech are good guys for doing that. And they do provide financial aid for people whose insurance won't pay/doesn't pay enough. But in my case, Avastin might do a better job, but my ins. won't pay either for Avastin or injecting Avastin. (Either drug has to be injected into the eye to have an effect on macular degeneration. Injections aren't fun but you do get numbing drops and once you've had a dozen, like I have, you get used to it.)

Medicare does pay at least a portion. Senator Herbert Kohl (D-Wisconsin) was investigating into why Medicare is paying so much for Lucentis when Avastin is so much cheaper. It's estimated the cost differential is $1.2 billion compared to $60 million.

There is a trial comparing the two drugs but Genentech has really dragged their feet about getting it going and helping out.

The thing is, Genentech spent lots of money developing Lucentis from Avastin. They thought Lucentis would work much better in eyes and that they'd be able to recoup their investment. So they have held up the comparative trial, tried to restrict pharmacists from providing opthalmic doses of Avastin, and so on. You can't blame them - at least not until somebody goes blind because of their greed. People shouldn't have to pay with their sight because Genentech made the wrong bet.

It's hell to have to learn so much about this at the age of 51!

[HamdenRice]

4. What? Haven't you heard that 98% of drug manufacturer personnel are dedicated

only to the public interest and not in any measure to profit???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x43693#43818

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[mhatrw]

6. No he didn't!

Unbelievable.

[Celebration]

7. Yeah, that is it

It is in the public interest not to test the cheaper drug, I am sure.

:sarcasm:

[Celebration]

8. dupe n/t

[varkam]

9. You changed a few important words.

Just thought I'd point that out.

[LeftishBrit]

5. It is really sad...

when the profit motive results in important and necessary treatments being made so expensive that people can't get them!

I hope there will be pressure on this company to promote the less expensive drug, or reduce the price of the other.