|
Run
I know my knowledge of pharmacoeconomics is simplistic but I "picked on" Sutent for a reason. In one experiment with a transplanted pancreatic tumour in mice combinations of Varying dosing schedules of Cytoxan (acute high dose Cytoxan followed by chronic low dose Cytoxan plus chronic SU-11248 (the experimental designation of Sutent before it was approved by the FDA) actually seemed to turn the fatal cancer into what seemed to be a chronic disease, sort of like treating diabetes with Insulin.
I realize this statement is simplistic also and Im certainly not suggesting that becase Sutent seems to act this way in a transplanted mouse cancer ( an artificial contrived situation) it would do the same in spontaneous human cancers which involve years of cumulative genetic transformations.
In the old pre Insurance days an Oncologist could prescribe a drug like Sutent for his patients based on what he or she has researched and knowledge is accumulated. Things are very different now with restrictive formularies.
Is it indeed true that marketing Oncology drugs is so many times more expensive than medications for other conditions. There is a new drug for the threatment of HIV infection called Selzentry and a month supply of this drug ( say sixty 300mg capsules) while still very expensive is a fraction of the cost of a months supply of Sutent (1000 dollars vs 7000 dollars, as a guess). I think politics is involved as well as actual cost of marketing.
Sutent is by no means an harmless drug. It can cause fatigue (very minor) severe high blood pressure, decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, severe edema, hand foot syndrome, hemmhorages in the actual tumours, anemia, thrombocytopenia etc etc. Anyone on this medication has to be closely monitored.
Paul
|
Threaded Mode