![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by KimStereo on November 12, 2008, at 15:01:57
Everytime we try to find a new med to help our anxiety or deprssive states, we find drugs with subtle changes lacking any novelty.
Pefect example.... Celexa turned into Lexapro by removing the R isomer and leaving the S isomer intact.
So what does this do ? Celexa turns generic, Lexapro turns into a new patented drug which is essentially the same, although some might argue differently. Huge deception is made to the public by the drug companies who commit these actions.
Similar events can be seen in the SSRI's , the Antispychotics, etc. etc. etc.
The problem with this is that because it is so easy to patent a new drug that essentially does the same thing as the old, what happens is that new "NOVEL" drugs are not being made and marketed as there is no incentive to do so.
Appreciate any thoughts on this issue of look alike "me too" drugs.
Posted by KimStereo on November 12, 2008, at 15:04:12
In reply to Drug Patents should be extened..What do you think, posted by KimStereo on November 12, 2008, at 15:01:57
BTW, I forgot to talk about the title about extending patents. By extending patents, maybe these new "NOVEL" drugs would be made as drug companies would have incentive to come up with the newer drugs that could potentially help or cure many of us.
Sorry I left that out in the main post...
Posted by psyclist on November 12, 2008, at 15:34:23
In reply to Re: Drug Patents should be extened..What do you think, posted by KimStereo on November 12, 2008, at 15:04:12
Its true that the drug companies put a lot of money and effort into developing a new treatment. And the exhaustive testing that is necessary also costs a lot. Is it worth it if five (guessing here) years down the line their drug loses its patent, and its prime position in the market, to a cheaper johnny come lately generic? The big drug companies might shrug their shoulders and say developing new drugs is not worth the trouble. But they may change their minds if the patent lasted longer, say ten years, thus allowing them to recoup the cost of developement and make a living besides.
Posted by desolationrower on November 12, 2008, at 16:10:48
In reply to Re: Drug Patents should be extened..What do you think, posted by psyclist on November 12, 2008, at 15:34:23
I think this is looking at it from the wrong direction. Extra money a decade or two away is too far away for a company to make a decision based on. Also, much of determines how much they would make is things out of their control. What is needed is more basic research, that doesn't have a directly usable outcome. Most of the basic research is funded through government; i think NIH budget is around 28 billion. I think this should be massively increased.
Also, patents are monopolies, and raise prices higher. This means fewer people get the medicine. Alternate ways of funding, like prizes or buyout of the patent would be helpful.
-d/r
Posted by Phillipa on November 12, 2008, at 21:13:15
In reply to Re: Drug Patents should be extened..What do you think, posted by desolationrower on November 12, 2008, at 16:10:48
I think someone posted too not long ago that celexa and lexapro are not the same????Love Phillipa
Posted by mav27 on November 13, 2008, at 4:32:47
In reply to Drug Patents should be extened..What do you think, posted by KimStereo on November 12, 2008, at 15:01:57
Posted by mav27 on November 13, 2008, at 4:33:07
In reply to Drug Patents should be extened..What do you think, posted by KimStereo on November 12, 2008, at 15:01:57
Isn't there a chance it could also lead to newer drugs taking longer to be made.. for eg instead of having lexapro now... which is similar technically but if you've taken both they seem like totally different drugs.. you could end up with the company having simply waited 10 years instead of 5 to release the lexapro.. i'm sure enough people are still on celexa to make them a profit for the time being.
(i don't know the length of patents so i just used 5 and 10 as examples)Or we would still have both now but both would be patented meaning no generic celexa for the people with less money.
Personally i'm glad it's worked the way it has as i find Lexapro to be life saving.. literally.. where as Celexa didn't work at all for me.
Posted by KimStereo on November 13, 2008, at 12:02:30
In reply to Re: Drug Patents should be extened..What do you think » KimStereo, posted by mav27 on November 13, 2008, at 4:33:07
I think some of you have missed the point. By simply adding or removing a single isomer, a drug can be called something else, a new patent can be obtained, and clinical trials can begin. It's a speedier and less costly process than coming up with newer "Noval" drugs. That was my point when I said extending patents would be beneficial. I realize some people swear by Celexa and others by Lexapro and some say both are terrible meds. I was just using this as an example of what actually goes on in the Pharmacy world. I think it is true that the "cleaner" the drug is, the less side effects one will experience thus making the drug more tolerable. So I wasn't trying to say that Lexapro was a good or bad drug. I'm just wondering if Forest labs next drug will be something like "Celexapro", just another SSRI... I was reading alot on Stablon recently, an SSRE, this is the only drug of it's kind in the world and the Europeans rant and rave over this medication. Although one can get it from an online pharmacy, why isn't it here.... If you read the literature, it all says the only reason it's not in the U.S. is because the Patent ran out. Thats pretty bad considering it might help people who can't tolerate or respond to SSRI's. These are just my thoughts and opinions..
Posted by desolationrower on November 13, 2008, at 12:42:53
In reply to Lexapro will turn into Celexapro after Patent isup, posted by KimStereo on November 13, 2008, at 12:02:30
Yes, i think tianeptine would really be a great choice for many people. I think the bigger issue is that it confounds the current ideology of why antidepressants work. Also, Servier has never put much effort into the american market. They have other drugs which are not availible here, like piribedil. If the FDA accepted saftey testing from european studies that would be a big improvement, as well as not requiring efficacy data.
-d/r
Posted by mav27 on November 13, 2008, at 18:43:16
In reply to Lexapro will turn into Celexapro after Patent isup, posted by KimStereo on November 13, 2008, at 12:02:30
Yes but how is making the patent longer going to change things ? Shorter patents mean the company has to start working on a new drug sooner before the paten wears off. Otherwise they will just have longer to sit on their backsides enjoying the money their patented drugs are making while waiting to release their slightly modified version. The only people that will be effected by longer patents are the people waiting for generic versions so they can afford the drug.
Posted by KimStereo on November 13, 2008, at 22:28:38
In reply to Re: Lexapro will turn into Celexapro after Patent isup » KimStereo, posted by mav27 on November 13, 2008, at 18:43:16
Have you ever heard of a drug company making too much money ? Honestly, I don't think they will be sitting back doing nothing. New Novel drugs will be more sought after. Just my opinion.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.