Thanks for the update and perspective. I've been thinking about this problem in a different way. Many drugs target one downstream consequence of disease--like CRP in this case--without addressing the underlying causes of inflammation. We spend far more on treating disease than preventing it, with too little investment in nutrition and lifestyle research. Take sleep-disordered breathing: it's common starting at midlife, underdiagnosed, drives chronic inflammation, and women's risk rises sharply after menopause. The landmark HypnoLaus Study revealed that sleep apnea is far more common than previously recognized, affecting nearly 60% of women and more than 80% of men aged 40–85. Yet we're doing very little to identify it early or figure out how to prevent it. We'll always need medications, but what's missing is an equal commitment to finding and addressing the underlying cause of disease--and I wish our healthcare system, researchers, and investors invested as much in that as they do in developing new drugs. I get that there are not the same financial incentives as with drugs, but therein lies the problem.
Thank you. Very interesting deconstruction. Didn't drug companies stick with using male prototypes because if they had a study with both men and women, they got two bell curves of responses, instead of one?
The history is a little bit complicated. Women were often treated as more difficult research subjects because hormonal cycles were considered an additional source of variation. But their formal exclusion from early drug trials was driven mainly by concerns about fetal harm following tragedies such as thalidomide and DES.
To your point - including women does not necessarily produce two separate bell curves. What it might do is to reveal differences in efficacy, dosage or side effects which is rationale why both sexes need to be studied properly.
Re - the price, Novo paid $725 million upfront to acquire Corvidia, the company that owned ziltivekimab. The total could rise to $2.1 billion if regulatory and sales milestones were achieved. The valuation reflected the drug’s intellectual property, commercial rights and expected future sales not the cost of manufacturing the drug.
I also spotted a typo in my article thanks to your question: I mistakenly wrote that the deal was worth up to $2.8 billion instead of $2.1 billion. Now amended! Thank you for flagging the question.
Thanks for the update and perspective. I've been thinking about this problem in a different way. Many drugs target one downstream consequence of disease--like CRP in this case--without addressing the underlying causes of inflammation. We spend far more on treating disease than preventing it, with too little investment in nutrition and lifestyle research. Take sleep-disordered breathing: it's common starting at midlife, underdiagnosed, drives chronic inflammation, and women's risk rises sharply after menopause. The landmark HypnoLaus Study revealed that sleep apnea is far more common than previously recognized, affecting nearly 60% of women and more than 80% of men aged 40–85. Yet we're doing very little to identify it early or figure out how to prevent it. We'll always need medications, but what's missing is an equal commitment to finding and addressing the underlying cause of disease--and I wish our healthcare system, researchers, and investors invested as much in that as they do in developing new drugs. I get that there are not the same financial incentives as with drugs, but therein lies the problem.
Thank you. Very interesting deconstruction. Didn't drug companies stick with using male prototypes because if they had a study with both men and women, they got two bell curves of responses, instead of one?
Why did this drug cost $1.2 billion?
Thank you for these two great questions.
The history is a little bit complicated. Women were often treated as more difficult research subjects because hormonal cycles were considered an additional source of variation. But their formal exclusion from early drug trials was driven mainly by concerns about fetal harm following tragedies such as thalidomide and DES.
To your point - including women does not necessarily produce two separate bell curves. What it might do is to reveal differences in efficacy, dosage or side effects which is rationale why both sexes need to be studied properly.
Re - the price, Novo paid $725 million upfront to acquire Corvidia, the company that owned ziltivekimab. The total could rise to $2.1 billion if regulatory and sales milestones were achieved. The valuation reflected the drug’s intellectual property, commercial rights and expected future sales not the cost of manufacturing the drug.
I also spotted a typo in my article thanks to your question: I mistakenly wrote that the deal was worth up to $2.8 billion instead of $2.1 billion. Now amended! Thank you for flagging the question.
Thank you so much for answering my questions. Hormonal cycles -- great excuse! Sorry; reason.
Yes, "both sexes need to be studied properly," but that costs money.
So, they didn't pay $725 million to acquire the drug, they bought the company! That makes a lot more sense.
The oceans of money sloshing around in corporate stratospheres seems unreal to people living from their labor.