Having spoken to many experts and organizations including experts from Costco and @AARP it was clear that even if the intent is there, providing low cost drugs in our system is extraordinarily difficult.
So I'm glad someone is taking the initiative.
The fact that your copay with insurance can be higher than paying out of pocket at the pharmacy tells you how broken the system is, how much the entire supply chain except the patient benefits from the current system.
Even when life saving expensive drugs like imatinib become generic, a low price is not guaranteed.
1) Because to enter formularies the generic is also priced high to accommodate all the rebates that go to middlemen. That why you see this kind of disparity in cost.
Even with @GoodRx coupon the lowest price is $120. Not $17.
And as a patient you wouldn't know that for this drug on this day, there is a much higher price at say Walgreens compared to Walmart.
2) Second is having one or two generics is not enough. Need more than 4 generics to have real completion and impact on prices. Many generics are hesitant to enter the US market if there are already a couple on the market because they would find it hard to enter formularies.
3) Third is Pharma has made it hard for generics to enter the market. And by the time they do, there is already a new and improved brand name version which makes the older one (which still works quite well) appear to seem outdated. We wrote about it here. mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-…
*competition
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
FDA approval doesn’t necessarily mean standard of care.
Thread.
1/
For example FDA approved Dara VMP for frontline therapy in myeloma in 2018.
Literally no one used the regimen in the US.
Literally no one felt the regimen was standard of care in the US.
Before or after approval!
Why?
FDA adjudicates a sponsors submission on whether a given drug/regimen has met the burden of proving safety and efficacy.
Standard of care in clinical practice is a different standard: judgment of risk/benefit of available alternatives, and assessment of trial design/end points.
Cure is a simple word. But there is confusion when it comes to cancer. What cure is in cancer, and what we should aspire for?
When can we say that a given type of cancer is curable?
Thread
1/
There is a difference between when we can say a particular cancer is a curable type versus whether individual patients with a given cancer can be considered potentially cured.
They are not the same.
2/
To call a cancer curable we must be able to treat the cancer for a finite duration, stop all therapy, and know that a certain % of patients will never relapse
Early stage solid tumors, Hodgkin lymphoma, DLBCL, ALL, AML are curable. Real cure. The definition of curable cancer
3/
The 4 big myeloma randomized trials to watch out for @ASCO #ASCO24
1. Isa-VRd vs Isa-Rd newly diagnosed
2.Isa-VRd vs VRd (IMROZ)
3.DREAMM8 Bela-Pd vs Pd
4.Ven Dex vs Pom Dex (Canova)
See thread for why they are important.
1) The Triplet vs Quad trials with will define role of quads in elderly patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. They also provide frontline phase III data with Isatuximab— and a choice between Dara and Isa. For some patients Isa will be more cost effective. @Myeloma_Doc #ASCO24
2) Belantamab will make a comeback.
Corneal toxicity is low with reduced frequency dosing. The drug works very well. And in many patients with refractory myeloma belantamab may be safer and easier to do than bispecifics. We need options. #ASCO24
2/ Even though CART (cilta-cel) is approved for first relapse we are NOT including it in our main algorithm. Reserved only for special circumstances in this population. We have a long track record with standard triplets, and we are concerned about CART side effects.
3/ The current approach for second or higher relapse continues to define 3 specific types of Triple Class refractory. This makes it easier for clinicians to consider options.
To my followers who wonder what MOC is, and why many doctors are tweeting about it. Thread.
1) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) is a redundant requirement thrust on US physicians by a private organization. We resent it.
2) MOC is causing frustration and burnout. Over the years, ABIM certification and MOC have become entrenched and institutions and insurers require it and will not accept any other alternative.
I am advocating on behalf of my colleagues in the US for change. To end MOC.
3) MOC requires us to pay fees imposed on us by a private organization and take multiple choice question tests irrelevant to our practice.