Fully informed>absolutely. However you know and I know that you can fully "inform" a lay person and they usually STILL defer to their trusted physician. We both know that the enbrel list of potential side effects is much bigger than raptiva's, however a lay person could STILL see them as both bad. I bet though that most severe P suffers just want to "get rid of it" and are willing to take an acceptable risk. I think you are definately on the right track though. Most Doc's I bet see Raptiva as the safer option. I think you would have to be blind or biased to see otherwise. DNA for their part seems to be targeting virgin territory. Notice how most targeted raptiva users are biologic naive.
Not only do docs seem to already see it, but thank goodness our marketing partner isnt satisified for a marketing campaign of "second option" if 1st option fails. Bottom line is both work, both have differing risks, and DNA wants to be first in line. If I were enbrel I would certainly be watching my back cause raptiva can do nothing BUT take away market share in OTHER INDICATIONS. I think its almost UNBELIEVABLE how so many can still think (and project) raptiva as psoriasis only. Raptiva and TNF will be like a one-two punch across a whole spectrum of things. The bigger question is who throws the 1st punch against each fighter
(new indication) and one must be ever mindful of the double punch option that still has yet to thought off by virtually all others. Two punches, lower doses, greater efficacy.
I know if I had my choice it would be throw the raptiva punch first and see if the opponent goes down. I will say this though, I was thinking I might throw a bet on that amgen boxer if cheap, but I agree with you. Enbrel could be a ticking time bomb. It might never go off, or it could explode. And if it explodes , then so does amgen and so will raptiva so to speak, albiet in a different direction.
All and always my worthless opinion. no facts, skd. |
