Exclusive: MS drug ‘rebranded’ – at up to 20 times the price

A pharmaceutical company stands accused of putting profit before patients after withdrawing a drug used in the treatment of a chronic debilitating disease – ahead of relaunching it at a price predicted to be up to 20 times higher…….

Sourece: The Independent

9 thoughts on “Exclusive: MS drug ‘rebranded’ – at up to 20 times the price”

  1. Hats off to Prof Zaijeck and co. Firstly for having the courage to offer this treatment to their patients outside the clinical trials and secondly for highlighting blatant profiteering. Not sure why this drug is not off patent as it was developed in cambridge university in the 80s.I can see NICE not approving because of the cost.

  2. These big pharmas are just beautiful. They've taken an existing drug that for years was given to MSers for next to nothing, and now that empirical evidence has been quantified, these heartless corporations are going to re-privitise it and sell it back to you at maximum cost.I'm surprised that Prof G has not yet comre out to defend them, seeing that he always sides with the unfair actions of big pharma, insisting that if we don't pay then they won't do the research and development.The big pharmas will do the same if an existing compound is found to be of use in PPMS and SPMS. No one will benefit.To hell with their drugs. We don't need DMTs. They're no good anyway. They're just a cash cow. Sitting in the sun will probably be twice as effective as any of this expensive tOXIC crap dished out by neuros that are wined and dined by these corrupt pharmas in exchange for access to us.

  3. Maybe we should be asking the A's from Cambridge to comment…Their little baby turned into a monster!However I suspect the bods (not necessarily the A's) from Cambridge get a slice of the action. Do we defend Pharma? At twenty times the price, I certainly do not."Not off patent"..it doesn't matter for a biological, because if someone makes a me-too it is invariably different and so they need to do trials etc This is the big con with the biological market because as you say CAMPATH is long past its sell-by date. It should be generic by now. If it were a chemical it would be. Therefore there is an advantage both to pharma and Neuros (non-UK) to keep the biologicals going. For pharma patent concerns limited and no generics to steal your market and for the neuros some fat fee for monitoring the influences of biologicals eg neutralising antibodies, PML or autoimmune tests etc. etc

  4. I'm surprised that Prof G has not yet come out to defend them, seeing that he always sides with the unfair actions of big pharma.Please read the posts he makes and you will see it is not all pro pharma. However it should also not be only pro pharma bashingIf he was so pro pharma why would he make the post?. It only draws attention to this issue It is obvious it will piss-you-off

  5. "These pharmas all need to be sued"What for? Trying to make money. What court would do that?For extorting their target recipient? Morally a problem, but What court would do that?Talk of suing often crops up in comments but being litigious, benefits few except the lawyers. They always win even when you lose.Lawyers are part of the reasons for high costs, because the system of patents is designed to make lawyers loads of cash.The patent system needs a complete overhaul and it would be one way to reduce development costs. Patents have to filed in each country this has costs for each country where they are filed. The documents may need translation and filing needs lawyers. If you file in US you need someone who understands state and US law if you file in Europe it is different again. So you can be granted a patent in the USA but rejected in Europe. This is farce you need one system that works Worldwide and is enforced worldwide. There are many States that undermine patents and manufacture drugs. Again it costs companies to deal with this.

  6. Correct me if i am wrong: Daclizumab (Zenapax), formerly used as an anti-rejection drug in kidney transplants, was withdrown from the market in 2009 about the time its investigation as a possible MS drug began (CHOICE study). Seems like others had the same idea as Sanofi.

  7. That's what I've always thought. They withdrew it early to avoid PR problems like Sanofi is having

    1. Daclizumab was withdrawn by Roche and then sold to Protein Design Labs, which handed the baton to Abbott Laboratories with a licensing deal. Abbott subsequently partnered with Biogen-Idec with regard to the development programme. It is hard to finger Abbott or Biogen-Idec as doing what Genzyme has done with Campath or Alemtuzumab. I would concede however, that withdrawing daclizumab from the market made it easier to sell the product on! Pharma clearly play the long-game when compared to other consumer industries.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: