Pfizer 'deliberately buried' data showing its arthritis drug might also prevent Alzheimer's (trunc)

daily mail ^ | 6/5/2019 | SAM BLANCHARD SENIOR HEALTH REPORTER FOR MAILONLINE

[RummyChick]

NO. It is not very simple. Let me guess. You didn’t read the article.

[dangus]

Well, if the formulation is the PEDIATRIC vial package shown, I can think of one reason why patients who take PEDIATRIC Embrel might be 65% less likely to get alzheimer’s than the general population... ;-)

[polymuser]

I know pharmas are about $$$$$$$.

I’ve also read of cases, as with Lyme’s Disease, where medical/insurance boards block effective treatments with available regimens (long-term doxy), because a vaccine is on the way (providing $$$$$ pharma income),

[tired&retired]

Democrats have also found that eye sight improvement surgery also decreases amount of sexual activity!

[RummyChick]

I am not sure when the patent runs out.

Here is info talking about 2029

https://www.centerforbiosimilars.com/news/amgen-filed-nearly-3-times-more-patents-on-enbrel-in-us-than-eu-or-japan-report-finds

Pfizer outside of US. Amgen inside US.

I THINK. Not sure

[dp0622]

???????

No sense at all.

But then these companies have gone to market without staggering test results.

Maybe there is a factor that is different outside of any studies?

Interesting

I dont know what the hell I am talking about :)

[circlecity]

"One of the world's biggest drug firms deliberately buried data showing one of its arthritis medications could slash the risk of Alzheimer's."

What does "buried the data" mean? Does the fact they chose not to publicize certain data mean they "buried" it? They could easily have made the business decision that the data wasn't solid enough to justify spending millions and millions to research the drug for this new purpose. Especially if there are already other, more promising, drugs for this undergoing clinical trials.

[adorno]

THis story doesn't make sense to me.

Makes sense to me. A couple of ways.

First off, people would be asking to get the medication to help prevent Alzheimer's and perhaps doctors would be tempted to prescribe it for that purpose. It wasn't developed for that purpose.

Secondly, Pfizer might have planned (just my guess) to develop a version of the drug for Alzheimer's and other purposes. That way, they would have TWO drugs in the market, making perhaps twice as much or more.

Thirdly, it they had acknowledged the secondary benefits from Embrel, who's to say that other drug makers might not have jumped at the opportunity and beaten Pfizer to market with the anti-Alzheimer's medicine?

Just my guesses, and I'm pretty sure the shareholders would have gotten on Pfizer's case if they had allowed other drug makers to beat them to market with such a product.

[RummyChick]

I dont think there are any really realistic promising studies. I got nailed in the Biogen stock cascade.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Just taking a wild guess here:

They feared that if word got out off-label use of their drug for this purpose would skyrocket. Then later, if some horrible risk was discovered, they’d be on the hook for untold billions in liabilities.

[RummyChick]

Article says they were urged INTERNALLY to do clinical trials and rejected it.

Amgen has a longer hold on the patent so maybe they will work on it.

[Flaming Conservative]

So they can introduce it as a patented new medication with the big bucks that brings, I suppose.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

If I had to guess I'd say it had something to do with the labyrinthian regulations regarding drug production and marketing, and the real probability of lawsuits costing billions of dollars if something being used in an ad hoc manner didn't work or caused some real harm.

Cancer would probably be cured by now, if we didn't have an FDA.

[circlecity]

"I dont think there are any really realistic promising studies. I got nailed in the Biogen stock cascade."

This itself could justify a decision that the preliminary studies didn't justify sinking millions, if not hundreds of millions, in future research and trials. I'd not saying Pfizer may not have ulterior, more shady, motives but the mere fact they chose not to publicize certain preliminary research results doesn't necessarily mean they do.

[statered]

Pfizer is not the only person with this data. There are numerous companies that have the claims data and can data mine from it. Commercial claims data is harvested and sold back to the drug companies de-identified for patient information on the the regular.

[adorno]

Article says they were urged INTERNALLY to do clinical trials and rejected it.

That's OFFICIALLY. Unofficially, they might have decided to conduct those studies, especially on rats and other animals.

[Avalon Memories]

Does a psoeiasis patch correlate to Alzheimer’s development? Not being snarky. Would really like to know.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Right -- but Pfizer would have had a jump on developing a modified, patentable version of the drug specifically targeted at Alzheimers, and could perhaps have gotten a brand new patent for it.

By doing nothing, they lost whatever advantage they would have had in trying to develop a version of the drug specifically targeted at Alzheimers.

That leads me to believe that Pfizer was telling the truth about why they didn't pursue it.

[taxcontrol]

along with the cost for government approval for a different treatment line.

[RummyChick]

You have to have a disease that warrants use of the drug via your insurance.

Not sure some psoriasis is enough. Maybe you need it on many parts of your body. have never pursued any medication for it.