Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Sepracor-Looks very promising -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Metcalf who wrote (3771)	10/13/1999 7:54:00 PM
From: Biomaven	Respond to of 10280

Right now, the health care system is still using drugs with potentially dangerous side effects just because they are cheaper - look at amphotericin B vs. the safer liposomal forms for a good example. My guess is that this particular example might rapidly change with the first big suit by a patient with nephrotoxicity from ampho B. With most of SEPR's drugs (except for examples like cisapride), the situation is much less clear cut. Faster onset, more convenient dosing, moderately better efficacy is not the stuff of lawsuits. Patients have no contractual right to the absolute best, without regard to price. Here's an interesting article in the current JAMA on the difficulties faced by doctors in choosing between different drugs: jama.ama-assn.org Peter

To: John Metcalf who wrote (3771)	10/14/1999 12:04:00 AM
From: margie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10280

"When an ICE is only marginally better, might an HMO be negligent not to permit its use?" That is doubtful, especially if it is only marginally better as opposed to significantly better, or shows a significantly better clinical outcome. According to Peter's article, "advocates of newer drugs" should at least show they are "equivalent, preferably superior to the older agent, in a "randomized comparative trials" Some classes of drugs (statins) require a large sample and long follow-up." I doubt if any of Sepracor's drugs would require long clinical trials as they probably chose not to pursue those ICE's. Now cars are a different story. The courts have decided that our cars definitely need the more expensive OEM parts, not the gray market parts or generics. "The prevailing legal theory was that State Farm knew that gray market parts were not as good. I wonder if State Farm's defense included data from controlled randomized tests demonstrating no significant differences in the parts they used? I know that generics are not as good as brand drugs, but my insurance company only pays for generics; if a generic is availble, I have to pay for the brand myself. BTW, the group of lawyers planning on suing the HMO's call themselves the "Repair Team." The lawyers include Richard Scruggs, and Ronald Motley, and the firm of David Boies, the lawyer who currently is representing the government in the antitrust case against Microsoft Corp.