Interesting that one of those drugs has "severe ga
Post# of 72447
(Total Views: 953)
Posted On: 09/02/2017 9:27:54 AM
Interesting that one of those drugs has "severe gastrointestinal side effects." So far we have had nothing significant in the way of side effects reported for Prurisol.
When the bashers elsewhere keep saying stuff like "it's a crowded field," the field is crowded with drugs that have terrible side effects and CONTROL the symptoms but don't put it into REMISSION.
That's the difference. Although we don't know for sure, it seems that Prurisol's side effects if any are minimal. And, because we think (but don't know yet) that Prurisol puts psoriasis into remission for awhile, the patient doesn't have to take it constantly. Letting your liver have a rest and not have to process the drug out of your body also reduces the chance of side effects.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that Prurisol works as well or better than it did in the first clinical trial, and it gets approved.
So you're a doctor. When someone comes in with psoriasis, which drug do you prescribe first -- the drug with minimal side effects that you only have to take for a short period of time, or the drug with possible bad side effects that you have to take all the time?
Even if Prurisol were to have efficacy that wasn't quite as good as the biologics, doctors would start with Prurisol because of the safety profile. And if the efficacy is equal to or better, it's a no-brainer.
And let's also remind the bashers that the best-case scenario is to have several effective drugs for a disease. Not every drug works for every person, and there need to be alternatives for the people who don't have success with the first drug they try.
When the bashers elsewhere keep saying stuff like "it's a crowded field," the field is crowded with drugs that have terrible side effects and CONTROL the symptoms but don't put it into REMISSION.
That's the difference. Although we don't know for sure, it seems that Prurisol's side effects if any are minimal. And, because we think (but don't know yet) that Prurisol puts psoriasis into remission for awhile, the patient doesn't have to take it constantly. Letting your liver have a rest and not have to process the drug out of your body also reduces the chance of side effects.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that Prurisol works as well or better than it did in the first clinical trial, and it gets approved.
So you're a doctor. When someone comes in with psoriasis, which drug do you prescribe first -- the drug with minimal side effects that you only have to take for a short period of time, or the drug with possible bad side effects that you have to take all the time?
Even if Prurisol were to have efficacy that wasn't quite as good as the biologics, doctors would start with Prurisol because of the safety profile. And if the efficacy is equal to or better, it's a no-brainer.
And let's also remind the bashers that the best-case scenario is to have several effective drugs for a disease. Not every drug works for every person, and there need to be alternatives for the people who don't have success with the first drug they try.
(10)
(0)