# Simultaneous pharma development of similar medications
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-pharma-development-of-similar-medications/841100
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion
**Created:** [October 1, 2019, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-pharma-development-of-similar-medications/841100 "2019-10-01T14:51:39Z")
**Posts on this page:** 11
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2019, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-pharma-development-of-similar-medications/841100/21 "2019-10-07T00:10:36Z")
> [@Treppenwitz](#):
>
> Hi **Ruken**. Are you unconvinced that new similar products come in waves, as **gogogophers** claims? It’s well known - they are generally referred to as Me-Too products, and [here’s a paper](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5659838/) discussing the phenomenon and giving examples. Note the first para of the introduction:
It’s largely media hype that doesn’t describe the general state of pharmaceutical innovation. 2018 was hardly a “me-too” year, but the OP most likely hasn’t seen advertisements for the 58 drugs APIs approved last year and probably hasn’t even heard of most of them. Hence the confirmation bias. Anyone completely ignorant of the pharmaceutical industry has the option of starting a GQ thread to fight that ignorance rather than telling us what is being focused on by “all of big pharma” without actually knowing what “all of big pharma” is focusing on.
---
### Author:  [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2019, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-pharma-development-of-similar-medications/841100/22 "2019-10-07T11:00:49Z")
> [@Treppenwitz](#):
>
> [here’s a paper](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5659838/) discussing the phenomenon
They’re actually referencing another paper there\*. But from that:
> [@](#):
>
> These results suggest a development race for drugs in a new therapeutic class, rather than a scenario where firms engage in low risk imitation of a proven breakthrough. This conclusion is further buttressed when we look at the development history of the breakthrough drug and compare it to the development histories of the follow-on drugs in its class.
>
> […]
>
> A number of supply and demand side hypotheses about the pharmaceutical marketplace can help explain the trends that we observed on speed to entry. Technological advances in basic biomedical science can open up opportunities for development for many firms by creating viable leads.[17] The drug industry’s shift away from random screening toward
> a more targeted rational drug design approach to drug discovery has increased the advantages obtained from connectedness to scientific networks, and so has increased the likelihood that a number of firms will be working on compounds in the same class at more or less the same time. The growth of the biotech sector in the 1980s and 1990s, as well as the increase in R&D spending by traditional pharmaceutical firms is likely related at least in part to the expansion of scientific opportunities. Even when restricting attention to small molecule development, an evaluation of the companies that obtained new drug approvals in the 1990s shows that, despite increased merger activity, output became less concentrated as more firms entered the industry as successful first-time developers of new drugs
Which I suppose answers the OP. New advances lead to development races.
\*10.2165/00019053-200422002-00002
---
### Author:  [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2019, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-pharma-development-of-similar-medications/841100/23 "2019-10-07T13:13:01Z")
Remember that anything clinical now is probably centered around a discovery from at least ten years ago. The OP cites psoriasis, and it’s true that there are a lot of drugs that appear similar, but that’s because a whole new cell type was discovered in the early 2000s that led to a complete rethinking of the pathogenesis of the disease. Obviously that opens up a brand new avenue and everyone is bumping heads on the way through the door.
---
### Author:  [@ZurBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZurBob)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2019, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-pharma-development-of-similar-medications/841100/24 "2019-10-07T13:56:01Z")
> [@Ruken](#):
>
> It’s largely media hype that doesn’t describe the general state of pharmaceutical innovation. 2018 was hardly a “me-too” year, but the OP most likely hasn’t seen advertisements for the 58 drugs APIs approved last year and probably hasn’t even heard of most of them. Hence the confirmation bias.
A clumsy list of random statements and conclusions on your behalf displays a rather confused attempt at logic, and certainly gives no clue as to what alternate universe you pulled the “confirmation bias” notion.
> [@Ruken](#):
>
> Anyone completely ignorant of the pharmaceutical industry has the option of starting a GQ thread to fight that ignorance rather than telling us what is being focused on by “all of big pharma” without actually knowing what “all of big pharma” is focusing on.
As with all questions, my query was indeed posed out of ignorance, yet never purported to “tell” anyone anything except what I had observed. However, you appear to feel eminently qualified on the subject matter, and this causes me to wonder: Do you have further insight related to the OP as others have contributed, or do you find it sufficient to merely display arrogant contempt?
Something tells me you would be unhappy irrespective where the OP was placed. However, if you feel sufficiently aggrieved, feel free to take it up with the Mods. Grind your axe… I’m perplexed as to why, yet indifferent as to where it’s located.
---
### Author:  [@ZurBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZurBob)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2019, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-pharma-development-of-similar-medications/841100/25 "2019-10-07T14:09:05Z")
Again, thanks to all (except one) for taking the time to explain. I now have some understanding re the OP.
---
### Author:  [@Treppenwitz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Treppenwitz)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2019, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-pharma-development-of-similar-medications/841100/26 "2019-10-07T14:45:33Z")
> [@Ruken](#):
>
> …Which I suppose answers the OP. New advances lead to development races.
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#):
>
> Remember that anything clinical now is probably centered around a discovery from at least ten years ago. The OP cites psoriasis, and it’s true that there are a lot of drugs that appear similar, but that’s because a whole new cell type was discovered in the early 2000s that led to a complete rethinking of the pathogenesis of the disease. Obviously that opens up a brand new avenue and everyone is bumping heads on the way through the door.
I think we’ve reached the stage where we’re all finding different ways to say the same thing - if you’re all on the start line together, then you’re going to finish pretty close as well. The only question being, _how come everyone’s on the start line together?_ - and that’s been pretty much addressed. But there is, I remembered, on other factor to consider. I don’t know to what degree this still happens (tho if it stopped 10 years ago, we’re still seeing the new drugs now). When a research group has reached the point of producing candidate molecules to go into development, they may have several worth taking forwards. They may choose not develop them all themselves (or just develop one or two and shelve the rest); they may choose to keep the best couple for themselves and sell off/licence the remainder to the highest bidder(s) (or indeed, sell/licence the best, if the money is right). Once again, everyone is on the start line together.
**Ruken** - with your further posts, I have come to suspect that there may have been no need for me to tell you these are called Me-toos. Oh well - sorry about that. But going back to your comment that “_2018 was hardly a “me-too” year_” - very true, it’s not the heyday of plaque psoriasis treatments or (_I was there…_) COX-II inhibitors (_…unfortunately_), but it’s not without it’s share of similar products for similar indications. There are two apparently similar products from different companies, to treat each of the following indications:
[ul]
[li]Polyneuropathy of hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis in adult patients [/li][li]Unresectable or metastatic melanoma (these from the same company - bit unusual)[/li][li]Thrombocytopenia in adult patients with chronic liver disease who are scheduled to undergo a procedure[/li][li]Migraine[/li][li]Acute myeloid leukemia[/li][li]Non-small cell lung cancer[/li][/ul]
So it doesn’t look like a phenomenon that’s going away any time soon. [List here](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/new-drugs-fda-cders-new-molecular-entities-and-new-therapeutic-biological-products/novel-drug-approvals-2018) if anyone’s interested.
j
---
### Author:  [@ZurBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZurBob)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2019, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-pharma-development-of-similar-medications/841100/27 "2019-10-07T14:58:37Z")
Just for clarification, **my** perspective of “recent barrage of advertisements” includes say, the past five years (or so). Excuse me, I’m old, and time flies.
---
### Author:  [@ZurBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZurBob)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2019, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-pharma-development-of-similar-medications/841100/28 "2019-10-07T15:11:06Z")
Just for clarification, **my** perspective of “recent barrage of advertisements” includes say, the past five years (or so). Excuse me, I’m old, and time flies. However the pharma concept of me-too’s isn’t completely foreign to me, hence my OP asking for the reason why.
---
### Author:  [@ZurBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZurBob)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2019, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-pharma-development-of-similar-medications/841100/29 "2019-10-07T15:15:35Z")
Missed the edit window, related to the double post. Sorry
---
### Author:  [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2019, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-pharma-development-of-similar-medications/841100/30 "2019-10-07T16:06:47Z")
I wrote a hugely detailed response, and it got eaten. So, I’ll write a shorter summary.
It’s easier to go down a path that other people are going down. The clinical development pathway to prove my drug works in a disease that everyone else is working on comes with the benefit that there are established clinical trial plans; biomarkers, readouts and designs that have already been proven. So, once one group shows there is a path, it makes it MUCH easier for the next group to copy that design.
Similarly, targeting a pathway that other groups are targeting is easier to sell to investors. I’m targeting something very different, which has the benefit that I have a much more solid IP package and there is less likelihood of anyone “me tooing” my pathway. But, the downside is that I have to go to investors and say, “Hey, here is this new thing that nobody else is doing, give me 50 million dollars!” That’s a tougher sell than, “Hey, here is this thing that everyone is working on because it’s well proven, and we can be slightly better because of A, B and C.”
Higher risk, higher reward in an already risky area. So, It’s more challenging for me to get my drug funded.
---
### Author:  [@Treppenwitz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Treppenwitz)
#### Post date: [November 14, 2019, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-pharma-development-of-similar-medications/841100/31 "2019-11-14T21:05:43Z")
> [@Treppenwitz](#):
>
> My bolding.
>
> Big Pharma companies are secretive, but academic research isn’t and that’s usually what starts the ball rolling. Academic research lives on its publication record (funding often depends on publications, and cites of those publications, hence cite boosting and … but that’s another story).
>
> So typically a “target” is discovered in academic research and published (it would the role of a specific interleukin in the disease process in this case, if I understand **BwanaBob** ). The good targets set off a feeding frenzy, with pharma companies falling over themselves to investigate potential and then develop products based on said target. Then its a footrace to market, which is why multiple “similar” products arrive over a relatively short period.
>
> j
Hey **gogogophers** , if you’re still interested, here’s [a real live example](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=885313) of this process that just turned up in MPSIMS. In this case ALCAM is the newly discovered target.
> [@](#):
>
> At present, there is no drug that Prat is aware of that specifically targets the ALCAM molecule. Still, he predicted it could take a pharmaceutical company five to six years to develop one, and then have it tested in a clinical trial.
j
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/simultaneous-pharma-development-of-similar-medications/841100.md?page=1)