To profit at all costs

[FrankGSterleJr]

Massive cancer-drug deal one of UBC's biggest to date

Researcher Artem Cherkasov displays a computer model simulation used to develop a new treatment for drug-resistant prostate cancer at the Vancouver Prostate Centre . 'Using computer simulations, we sometimes go through 50 million compounds to find a molecule that will seat in a precise and accurate way,' he says.

A promising new treatment for drug-resistant prostate cancer developed by scientists at the University of B.C. has been licensed by the pharmaceutical giant Roche for more than $140 million, the university's richest intellectual property deal in its history.
Researchers Paul Rennie and Artem Cherkasov of the Vancouver Prostate Centre designed the drug to treat prostate cancers that mutate, rendering conventional treatments useless. The Vancouver Prostate Centre is a national Centre for Excellence for Commercialization and Research hosted by UBC and the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute.
Under the terms of the agreement with Roche, UBC and VCHRI receive an upfront payment and up to $141.7 million US in milestone payments if the drug moves through pre-clinical and clinical trials, regulatory approval and meets sales targets, and then royalties thereafter.
"As much as that sounds -- and it is a lot -- the real money is in the royalties, which could exceed $140 million by quite a bit," said Brad
Wheeler, technology transfer manager at the University-Industry Liaison Office and lead negotiator on the Roche licence.
The scientists will share 50 per cent of the net revenue from the agreement and Roche will separately cover the costs of development, testing and commercialization.
UBC currently generates about $7 million a year from 300 active licences, money that is split between the university, its researchers and partner institutions.
"This licence could substantially increase that figure," said Wheeler. "This deal is exceptionally big."
Existing treatments for advanced prostate cancer may only be effective for a matter of months, merely delaying the course of the disease, said Rennie. Once conventional treatments fail, cancer can spread quickly throughout the body and is virtually incurable.
Prostate cancer is the most prevalent and potentially lethal cancer affecting men, with 24,000 new cases leading to more than 4,000 deaths per year, according to the Canadian Cancer Society.
"The major problem with our current forms of treatment is that the androgen receptor (targeted by the drug) becomes mutated and resistant," said Rennie.
"Tumours are pretty much addicted to the androgen and will do what they have to [in order] to get around whatever drug you use to block it."
The new drug candidate outsmarts the cancer by attacking the same receptor that promotes tumour growth, but to a location that binds to a very specific bit of DNA. Any change or damage to the site through mutation would render it useless, so its structure is stable, offering hope that a drug designed to exploit it could be effective for a long time.
The researchers found the threedimensional shape of their target location in previous research and set about looking for a molecule that would shut it down.
"Drugs and proteins work like a key in a lock, so we have to find the perfect key for the existing lock," said Cherkasov. "Using computer simulations, we sometimes go through 50 million compounds to find a molecule that will seat in a precise and accurate way."
Cherkasov's powerful search technique produced about 200 candidate molecules, which they winnowed down to just a handful that appeared to be promising drugs. "When (Cherkasov) came to us, this technology was like a hammer looking for a nail," said Rennie. "I knew just where to put the nail."
Their lead compound works against tumours in animals, but still requires some structural "tweaking," which is work Rennie and Cherkasov will do in partnership with Roche.
Bringing a fully realized drug to market can easily cost $1 billion and take years to complete.
"At the end of the day, we'd like to have a simple pill to take once a day for prostate cancer patients," said Cherkasov.

The Vancouver Sun, December 15, 2015

_____________________________________________________

Oh, grand! Now all a prostate-cancer infested guy needs is the many thousands of dollars per life-saving dose in order to be found worthy of the newly-discovered formula’s disease-eliminating grace; and this fact is particularly so in Canada which grants the mega-pharmaceuticals 20 years of patent protection against any generic brands offering the same saviour chemical at a small fraction of Roche’s price. But like the fundamental Libertarian socio-economic-Darwinism ideology dictates: Survival of the richest and the fully, well employed.

[wtf]

Just to clarify my own understanding, suppose we took all the profit out of drug research. How would new drugs be discovered? And as you know, the discovery is the least of it. Getting through all the required government trials and approvals is extremely expensive.

Where do you draw the line? We must incentivize creators to create, and most research ends in failure. In a sense, the excessive profits of a successful drug are paying for all the failures of other research projects.

So when you are king of the world, how will you compensate drug researchers?

[Obvious Leo]

Drug companies would soon go out of business if they developed drugs that actually cured people. The entire business model is predicated on the notion that drugs should keep people alive WITHOUT curing them. Privatised medicine is a moral abomination.

[Dubious]

Oh, grand! Now all a prostate-cancer infested guy needs is the many thousands of dollars per life-saving dose in order to be found worthy of the newly-discovered formula’s disease-eliminating grace; and this fact is particularly so in Canada which grants the mega-pharmaceuticals 20 years of patent protection against any generic brands offering the same saviour chemical at a small fraction of Roche’s price. But like the fundamental Libertarian socio-economic-Darwinism ideology dictates: Survival of the richest and the fully, well employed.

It's often those who are themselves a cancer on society selling misery and misfortune in one form or another to countless others who possess the wealth to pay for the most advanced survival technologies. Drug companies especially have made it clear that the value of your life is worth only what you can pay to save it or procrastinate it.

These breakthroughs are generally of little consolation to them who need it and often the cause of more misery because they can't afford it.

[wtf]

Drug companies would soon go out of business if they developed drugs that actually cured people. The entire business model is predicated on the notion that drugs should keep people alive WITHOUT curing them. Privatised medicine is a moral abomination.

Question: Should for-profit grocery stores exist? People need food to live. Just want to see where and how you are drawing this line. How about drugstores?

[Obvious Leo]

I don't see the analogy but I regard the withholding of food from somebody who would otherwise die without it on the grounds that he can't pay for it as equally immoral.

[BigWhit]

... I regard the withholding of food from somebody who would otherwise die without it on the grounds that he can't pay for it as equally immoral.

As do I, but this is why emergency room MUST treat you regardless of your ability to pay. If we wish to lower the cost of medicine should we not concentrate on lowering the cost of testing and certification. $1 billion dollars!? What the hell!

[Obvious Leo]

There are a number of strategies which could lower the overall cost of medicine to the community but targeting the low hanging fruit would be the most likely place to start. Currently the biggest upward cost pressures in most countries are driven by over-servicing and over-prescription and this problem constitutes a systemic flaw in both privatised and socialised medicine. There is also far too little emphasis placed on preventative medicine and public education on the significance of lifestyle choices to the overall health budget. Measures to reduce the risk of people getting sick are a lot cheaper to implement than the complex treatment regimes which would thereby be avoided. Such measures would also produce a significant increase in economic productivity more generally.