Guest guest Posted December 8, 2003 Report Share Posted December 8, 2003 An important article shown below, may outline a case for syndrome differentiation after all. THe implications are massive. The RCT model may well need to be altered to reflect this situation in drug administration. Taken from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3299945.stm A senior executive at Europe's largest drug maker has admitted most prescription medicines don't work for most people, it is reported. Allen Roses, of GlaxoSmithKline, is quoted in a national newspaper as saying more than 90% of drugs only work in 30-50% of people. He said: " Drugs on the market work, but they don't work in everybody. " Mr Roses, an expert in genetics, said new developments should help tailor drugs more specifically. At present, pharmaceutical companies adopt a " one-drug-fits-all " policy. But Mr Roses said refinements in genetic technology should make it possible to identify more precisely those people who were likely to benefit from a drug. He said: " By eliminating the people that we predict will be non- responders we'll be able to do smaller, faster and cheaper drug trials. " If you can determine who is going to have a response (to a drug) and who is not going to have a response, you can take your next molecule and aim it specifically at the people who haven't had a response with the first one so that you can create a set of drugs that cover the population, and then you are back to selling to everybody. " Big differences GSK announced last week that it had more than 20 potential $1 billion-a-year blockbuster drugs in development. Mr Roses quoted research published three years ago by Brian Spear, an expert in medical diagnostics, which found that different drugs had vastly different success rates in treating patients. Most drugs had an efficacy rate of 50% or lower. Richard Ley, a spokesman for the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, told BBC News Online, said Mr Roses' comments emphasised just how important it was to conduct research into new products. He said: " It's not news to anyone that not all drugs work in all people all the time. " Sometimes the government and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence want to try to find one drug for a particular condition. " This shows quite clearly that is not a viable approach. A medicine might work well in one person, and not at all for another. " Any comments? Attilio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2003 Report Share Posted December 9, 2003 Here is another article with more info. Most people don't respond anything like the pretty ads say they will. It's a phony scam. Following it is a list of genetically modified enzymes, because their use is so pervasive, and the fact the human is becoming unknowingly more and more 'modified ', as the body rebuilds itself from these products. The unmoderated transhumanism race is well under way. -------------------------- Glaxo chief: Our drugs do not work on most patients By Steve Connor, Science Editor 08 December 2003 A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them. Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them. It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public. His comments come days after it emerged that the NHS drugs bill has soared by nearly 50 per cent in three years, rising by £2.3bn a year to an annual cost to the taxpayer of £7.2bn. GSK announced last week that it had 20 or more new drugs under development that could each earn the company up to $1bn (£600m) a year. Dr Roses, an academic geneticist from Duke University in North Carolina, spoke at a recent scientific meeting in London where he cited figures on how well different classes of drugs work in real patients. Drugs for Alzheimer's disease work in fewer than one in three patients, whereas those for cancer are only effective in a quarter of patients. Drugs for migraines, for osteoporosis, and arthritis work in about half the patients, Dr Roses said. Most drugs work in fewer than one in two patients mainly because the recipients carry genes that interfere in some way with the medicine, he said. " The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people, " Dr Roses said. " I wouldn't say that most drugs don't work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don't work in everybody. " Some industry analysts said Dr Roses's comments were reminiscent of the 1991 gaffe by Gerald Ratner, the jewellery boss, who famously said that his high street shops are successful because they sold " total crap " . But others believe Dr Roses deserves credit for being honest about a little-publicised fact known to the drugs industry for many years. " Roses is a smart guy and what he is saying will surprise the public but not his colleagues, " said one industry scientist. " He is a pioneer of a new culture within the drugs business based on using genes to test for who can benefit from a particular drug. " Dr Roses has a formidable reputation in the field of " pharmacogenomics " - the application of human genetics to drug development - and his comments can be seen as an attempt to make the industry realise that its future rests on being able to target drugs to a smaller number of patients with specific genes. The idea is to identify " responders " - people who benefit from the drug - with a simple and cheap genetic test that can be used to eliminate those non-responders who might benefit from another drug. This goes against a marketing culture within the industry that has relied on selling as many drugs as possible to the widest number of patients - a culture that has made GSK one of the most profitable pharmaceuticals companies, but which has also meant that most of its drugs are at best useless, and even possibly dangerous, for many patients. Dr Roses said doctors treating patients routinely applied the trial-and-error approach which says that if one drug does not work there is always another one. " I think everybody has it in their experience that multiple drugs have been used for their headache or multiple drugs have been used for their backache or whatever. " It's in their experience, but they don't quite understand why. The reason why is because they have different susceptibilities to the effect of that drug and that's genetic, " he said. " Neither those who pay for medical care nor patients want drugs to be prescribed that do not benefit the recipient. Pharmacogenetics has the promise of removing much of the uncertainty. " Response rates Therapeutic area: drug efficacy rate in per cent Alzheimer's: 30 Analgesics (Cox-2): 80 Asthma: 60 Cardiac Arrythmias: 60 Depression (SSRI): 62 Diabetes: 57 Hepatits C (HCV): 47 Incontinence: 40 Migraine (acute): 52 Migraine (prophylaxis)50 Oncology: 25 Rheumatoid arthritis50 Schizophrenia: 60 ---- Chinese Medicine , " Attilio DAlberto " <attiliodalberto> wrote: > An important article shown below, may outline a case for syndrome > differentiation after all. THe implications are massive. The RCT > model may well need to be altered to reflect this situation in drug > administration. > > Taken from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3299945.stm > > A senior executive at Europe's largest drug maker has admitted most > prescription medicines don't work for most people, it is reported. > Allen Roses, of GlaxoSmithKline, is quoted in a national newspaper > as saying more than 90% of drugs only work in 30-50% of people. > > He said: " Drugs on the market work, but they don't work in > everybody. " > > Mr Roses, an expert in genetics, said new developments should help > tailor drugs more specifically. > > At present, pharmaceutical companies adopt a " one-drug-fits-all " > policy. > > But Mr Roses said refinements in genetic technology should make it > possible to identify more precisely those people who were likely to > benefit from a drug. > > He said: " By eliminating the people that we predict will be non- > responders we'll be able to do smaller, faster and cheaper drug > trials. > > " If you can determine who is going to have a response (to a drug) > and who is not going to have a response, you can take your next > molecule and aim it specifically at the people who haven't had a > response with the first one so that you can create a set of drugs > that cover the population, and then you are back to selling to > everybody. " > > Big differences > > GSK announced last week that it had more than 20 potential $1 > billion-a-year blockbuster drugs in development. > > Mr Roses quoted research published three years ago by Brian Spear, > an expert in medical diagnostics, which found that different drugs > had vastly different success rates in treating patients. > > Most drugs had an efficacy rate of 50% or lower. > > Richard Ley, a spokesman for the Association of the British > Pharmaceutical Industry, told BBC News Online, said Mr Roses' > comments emphasised just how important it was to conduct research > into new products. > > He said: " It's not news to anyone that not all drugs work in all > people all the time. > > " Sometimes the government and the National Institute for Clinical > Excellence want to try to find one drug for a particular condition. > > " This shows quite clearly that is not a viable approach. A medicine > might work well in one person, and not at all for another. " > > > Any comments? > > Attilio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.