Biogen, Bayer MS drugs aren’t cost effective, study says

If it's on your mind and it has to do with multiple sclerosis in any way, post it here.

Biogen, Bayer MS drugs aren’t cost effective, study says

Postby MSUK » Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:40 pm

Image

Biogen Idec Inc.and Bayer AG would have to cut the price of their multiple sclerosis drugs by at least two-thirds in the U.S. to make them cost effective at boosting quality of life, a study found.

Disease-modifying drugs for MS like Avonex from Weston, Massachusetts-based Biogen, and Betaseron, sold by Leverkusen, Germany-based Bayer, are at least eight times costlier than what researchers consider reasonable when putting a price on quality- of-life improvement, according to the study published today in the journal Neurology. The study also found that prescribing the drugs in earlier stages of MS improved cost effectiveness.

Multiple sclerosis affects about 400,000 people in the U.S., and 2.5 million worldwide, according to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. The chronic disease attacks the central nervous system and can cause paralysis, numbness in limbs and vision loss. The disease-modifying drugs, which delay progression and reduce relapse of MS, can cost about $34,000 a year in the U.S., compared with about 8,000 pounds ($12,920) in the U.K., the study said. ... Read More - http://www.msrc.co.uk/index.cfm/fuseact ... ageid/1809
MS-UK - http://www.ms-uk.org/
User avatar
MSUK
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2180
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:00 pm

Advertisement

Re: Biogen, Bayer MS drugs aren’t cost effective, study says

Postby HarryZ » Thu Jul 21, 2011 6:55 am

Biogen Idec Inc.and Bayer AG would have to cut the price of their multiple sclerosis drugs by at least two-thirds in the U.S. to make them cost effective at boosting quality of life, a study found.


How long have I been saying that these drugs are just too expensive considering the number of years that they have been available. Their price levels have been raised artificially over the years simply because other drugs like Tysabri have such a high price tag. It has nothing to do with making a reasonable profit but perhaps a little greed thrown in. I rest my case!

Harry
User avatar
HarryZ
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada

Postby cheerleader » Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:08 am

What's most troubling is that in the US, the drugs cost a whopping 67% more than in other industrialized nations. This report was published in the American Academny of Neurology. Here's their press release on this. It's all over the US news today.

As context, it’s worth noting that the research did not address whether disease-modifying drugs affected the likelihood, timing or severity of MS progression, the most disabling aspect of MS; because such progression typically becomes noticeable many years after disease onset. The study was based on up to four years of data from observational studies, so it did not capture these outcome measures.

http://www.aan.com/press/index.cfm?fuse ... elease=969
cheer
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com
User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
 
Posts: 5042
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: southern California

Postby Loobie » Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:51 am

The drugs simply don't work. The primary endpoint of the trials was statistical relevance of less lesion load after a short period of time. So that's all they had to meet. There was not one endpoint that had to do with disease progression so this drug wasn't even designed to deal with that. Since any MS'r can tell you that lesion load has nothing to do with quality of life and progression, it was bogus before it even got started. Plus the exclusion criteria basically excluded anyone who had 'real MS'. The drugs are a joke pure and simple. Not only do they drain your pocket book, but they make you feel like shit!

No one should take a drug designed for a disease where the cause is not even known UNLESS they stumble upon something that actually shows statistical relevance of LESS PROGRESSION. Nothing else matters and, in my opinion anyway, we should not inject drugs where the doctors don't know the etiology of the disease AND they don't know the mechanism of action of the drug as it would pertain to making us 'better'.

My first convo. with my neurologist I used to go to went something like this:

"You should pick one of these drugs, I'll recommend Avonex" Disclosure: All his speeches to support groups and to Universities are ALL sponsored by Biogen.

"We don't really know what causes MS and the odds of this drug working EVEN ON LESION LOAD (added for effect, but true) are far less than 50%, but you should take it just in case".

We are so scared of our diagnosis, we'll do anything at that point. That's where the hook gets set. We still have somewhat good health (more often than not for sure) at diagnosis and the prognosis of the side FX looks tolerable. Your body does adjust, but then you're just injecting stuff that doesn't make you get any better. You may (24% chance, woo-hoo!) have a cleaner MRI, but your disease process doesn't' change.

Make sense to take them? Inject expensive unknown 'stuff' just in case? Not anymore in my case.
User avatar
Loobie
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2196
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: Dayton, Ohio USA

Postby HarryZ » Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:00 am

Loobie wrote:The drugs simply don't work.


Loobie,

I have been saying that for years but since I don't have MS and totally dislike Biogen, I must have an agenda somewhere to have the attitude that I do.

After some 40 years of following the MS scene, you come to the conclusion that I have and it certainly isn't based on some agenda. Call it experience or whatever but hey, what do I know?

Harry
User avatar
HarryZ
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada


Return to General Discussion

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service