Imagine that you are developing a new drug for a disease that already have effective treatment.
- What sense would do that? , you might wonder at first. "Much
-I would answer. Perhaps then
defend the meaning of your drug development, arguing that it was probably in some respects superior to existing drugs. This is studied through what is known as superiority trials.
But today, also perform other types of tests, called non-inferiority, who would claim to show that your drug is superior to existing ones, but simply that it is worse.
- And then my new drug would have no place in the market?
"Yes, certainly. Just to prove that it is significantly less toxic, which has fewer interactions or that offers benefits in their lifetime.
precisely this last point, the half-life, is that today I want to talk. Not go into gory pharmacokinetic considerations, I will explain in a very simplified half-life is a measure of how long the drug is present in our bodies: a longer half-life means more time.
Although there are exceptions, one can infer from the above explanation that the higher the average life of a drug, the less you will need to take it. Therefore, there are medicines that are taken three times a day, sometimes only a few injections and last for months.
toilets know dozens of examples of new drugs that do not provide advantages over his predecessors with the exception of a longer half-life and, therefore, fewer daily doses. Often these drugs, being new, more expensive, but, when applied less frequently, are a comfort to the sick and, theoretically, improve treatment compliance.
I often wonder if spending on new drugs is justified within Social Security. Our health system should strive to maintain a proper blood pressure, a blood glucose in check, a controlled infection. That remains to be achieved through the older drugs, the short half-life. To what extent should subsidize modern drugs, as effective, more comfortable but more expensive?
0 comments:
Post a Comment