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.
They’re actually referencing another paper there*. But from that:
Which I suppose answers the OP. New advances lead to development races.
*10.2165/00019053-200422002-00002
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.
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.
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.
Again, thanks to all (except one) for taking the time to explain. I now have some understanding re the OP.
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 if anyone’s interested.
j
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.
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.
Missed the edit window, related to the double post. Sorry
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.
Hey gogogophers, if you’re still interested, here’s a real live example of this process that just turned up in MPSIMS. In this case ALCAM is the newly discovered target.
j