I believe the HIV BLA priority has dropped a bit.
Post# of 155188
(Total Views: 476)
Posted On: 06/11/2022 10:40:11 AM
Re: I_luv_cydy #124577
I believe the HIV BLA priority has dropped a bit. I remember Nader saying the value of the HIV market as much as 8-11 billion for both combo and mono just a little over 2 years ago. Then this past fall Nader said the value is now around 30 million in market value. This is a huge drop from what we thought we had in value. There has been a lot of drugs approved for HIV in the past two year and our market value has diminished a whole bunch according to what Nader stated in a CC. This is more than likely the reason and why the priority level has dropped for HIV. All though the first approval no matter what it is… is huge. It should still be completed asap.
It doesn’t mean that a drug with no known adverse side effects and a great safety record ( we still hope) can’t be marketed to take a bigger share especially in mono but as it stands now. Especially when NAFLD benefits could benefit the people that need it most that actually have HIV. Who if I remember right had 60% chance of NAFLD/NASH problems. This is a huge selling point when your side effect is a huge benefit.
The problem is… I believe it has to be used as a third option drug and don’t understand why we bargained such a bad deal or even why deals are made where you can’t use any drug of choice when a doctor decides it’s a better choice for whatever reason. Seems like a beat down to be listed as a third choice drug and only keeps inferior drugs on the market is would seem. I just don’t understand the reasoning behind a third option drug that could out class the other two before it. These restrictions of use blow me away and if someone has a better grip on how this happens or why. Please share your opinion. It just doesn’t seem right when Leronlimab has no issues to restrict it to a 3 option drug for HIV.
It doesn’t mean that a drug with no known adverse side effects and a great safety record ( we still hope) can’t be marketed to take a bigger share especially in mono but as it stands now. Especially when NAFLD benefits could benefit the people that need it most that actually have HIV. Who if I remember right had 60% chance of NAFLD/NASH problems. This is a huge selling point when your side effect is a huge benefit.
The problem is… I believe it has to be used as a third option drug and don’t understand why we bargained such a bad deal or even why deals are made where you can’t use any drug of choice when a doctor decides it’s a better choice for whatever reason. Seems like a beat down to be listed as a third choice drug and only keeps inferior drugs on the market is would seem. I just don’t understand the reasoning behind a third option drug that could out class the other two before it. These restrictions of use blow me away and if someone has a better grip on how this happens or why. Please share your opinion. It just doesn’t seem right when Leronlimab has no issues to restrict it to a 3 option drug for HIV.
(1)
(0)