Replies to post #129277 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

As if to preempt the Xarelto sNDA submission, Public Citizen is campaigning to stave off approval on grounds the ROCKET-AF study was seriously flawed. Although I have heard many of these criticisms, I wonder what is the motive or agenda of Public Citizen? Are they interested in costs, wanting to avoid expensive new drugs with marginal advantages?

Public Citizen does not corporations to make money by selling drugs. It’s really that simple.

[biomaven0]

I wonder what is the motive or agenda of Public Citizen?

I'd say it it about 50:50 not wanting companies to make money (or not wanting the system to spend money on expensive drugs) - they are basically Naderites - and acting in what they perceive (sometimes correctly in my view) to be the public's interest.

As evidence for the latter, they were the driving force behind getting Darvon (propoxyphene) removed from the market, even though it was a generic and so inexpensive. Darvon was a widely-prescribed but only marginally effective analgesic that caused a fair number of cardiac deaths (likely thousands) because of a narrow therapeutic index. It was basically only prescribed by physicians who didn't know any better and wanted something "stronger" than an NSAID but didn't want to prescribe a narcotic. It's been banned in Europe for some years now.

They were also quite early on the dangers of Vioxx.

Their general motto is don't take any drug within 7 years of approval unless you have a critical need for it. If everyone adopted their policy there would be no new drugs except for oncology drugs and drugs for a few other life-threatening diseases.

Peter

[DewDiligence]

Based on today’s CC, BMY doesn’t think much of the Xarelto results in ACS. They are talking book, of course, but in this instance I’m inclined to agree (#msg-67581349)