Hi, gg -
It's been long understood by Dimethaid investors that Pennsaid avoids most of the dangers of ingested NSAIDs and COX2 selective inhibitors.
Remember this?
pennsaid.ca
And this?
Topical Solution for Osteoarthritis May Challenge COX-2 Inhibitors
pennsaid.ca
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The difference between then and now? We're getting proof of how correct these beliefs were.
After a promising start, Pennsaid sales levelled off. It was believed by some that Pennsaid sales would continue to grow, but the lack of evidence (many health-care agencies such as NICE in the UK have an evidence-based approach) was a flaw.
Sure, you could "pitch" Pennsaid on the basis of a rational argument that the ultimate cost of using Pennsaid was actually less than pills. Why? Because you didn't incur the additional costs (to the health-care system) of treating side effects.
But where was the data? There was none. The rational argument (by itself) wasn't enough to persuade many physicians, or formularies. Over on SH, we were continually bombarded by quotes from the Glasgow formulary, that rejected Pennsaid on the basis of cost-effectiveness.
That, coupled with the bias against topicals for OA (especially in the UK and EU) - and the difficulty of differentiating Pennsaid from other topicals - meant that Pennsaid's acceptance would be slow, at best.
There's lots of built-in inertia in public health agencies. Nevertheless, affirmation of data from Pennsaid trials, and new awareness of side effects of pills means new sales for Pennsaid.
How many? How fast? That will depend on how much "inertia" there is, and how well new management can improve marketing of the product. At some point, one has to believe that Pennsaid will be much better understood as a very strong alternative to, or adjunct of, pills - and the best of all topicals for OA.
Regards,
Jim
|
