I have a little insight here from working with ophthalmologists.

When the article mentions "using a cancer drug to treat a leading cause of blindness" it's talking about using Bevacizumab (brand name Avastin) to treat macular degeneration.

Avastin and Lucentis are molecularly the same drug. The difference is that Avastin isn't packaged to be injected into eyeballs, and Lucentis is. Also, Avastin costs about $50/dose, and Lucentis costs around $1,500/dose.

There are compounding pharmacies that will repackage Avastin into a format that can be injected into eyeballs.

However, many ophthalmologists are hesitatnt to use Avastin because that process introduces the potential for contamination. Not that it happens frequently, but every ophthalmologist I know lives in fear of introducing an infection into their patient's eyeballs. And what level of risk is worth saving $1,450 per dose on an injection? 1/100? 1/1000?

I know at least one ophthalmologist who would use Avastin, but would culture a sample from every batch she got from the compounding pharmacy, and had at least one batch that cultured bacteria.

Assumedly, if she hadn't, every patient she injected with that batch would have been at risk of contracting endophthalmitis, and endophthalmitis is no joke. Not infrequently, it can mean losing vision.

I know several of that ophthalmologist's colleagues who had been using compounded Avastin to try and save their patients money, stopped after that incident.

I don't really have a conclusion beyond "drug pricing is insane and the issue is complex for providers."

I have been a supporter of Cures Within Reach, a nonprofit that focuses on repurposing drugs, especially for rare diseases. https://www.cureswithinreach.org

They have funded some important repurposed-drug studies for Huntingtons Disease, which runs in my family. For a disease like this, it's never going to make sense for major pharmaceutical companies to invest the effort to develop entirely new drugs, but by repurposing existing drugs, it gives people living with rare diseases a chance to ease symptoms.

I’m currently on Spravato, which is fully emblematic of how broken the incentives in the US healthcare system are.

Spravato is esketamine - a modified version of ketamine. Ketamine is made up of mirror image molecules and esketamine is the right-handed molecule. They did this because ketamine is off-patent so they needed to modify it in order to patent it, however there is evidence that esketamine is a less effective treatment than ketamine.

It’s very cheap for me but my insurance company pays about $17k a month for this treatment. Ketamine would be a more effective treatment that would be super cheap for them, but they don’t do it because it’s not FDA-approved. So they’re paying a fortune for a less effective treatment.

It would be in the insurance companies’ interests to band together to fund the research so they can save huge amounts of money in the long term but they do not do this.

Related, one of my all time favorite articles: https://www.propublica.org/article/revlimid-price-cancer-cel...

Such studies are great but there is no regulatory pathway to extend the use of existing drugs for new indications of use without the consent of the manufacturer (or becoming a manufacturer yourself).

This means such studies can give more clarity on which off-label use is beneficial but it can't be an officially allowed usage.

If you haven't watched this talk by Matt Might on Precision Medicine with MiniKanren, you will surely find it inspiring https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt3XyeFHvt4

universal health care can be offered even in 3rd world countries but they're really smart about keeping costs low. they drastically cut the costs of medical service by just offering one or two generic drugs bbought in bulk from china and india rather than all those custom expensive drugs that do the same thing. it does the same thing but at a much lower cost

How do people needing (and willing to risk) treatment hear about repurposing studies?

Yes, but it's really tough. I read that 50% of Stanford Medical School budget comes from Big Pharma. It's really hard to get the message out. I believe Pharma (the biggest advertiser on Google) is influencing Google search results, among other things.

Here is a site that focuses on COVID and Cancer: https://imahealth.org/

fascinating! I'm sure there's quite a bit that can be learned through appropriate research - pathways to solve problems that haven't been thought of before

What is repurposing drugs?

If every drug created with taxpayer dollars at government-funded research institutions was open-sourced, there would be a collapse in monopoly control of drug manufacturing and that would lower prices significantly.

The question is then, if corporations can no longer acquire IP rights to drugs created by taxpayer-funded research programs and transferred to their exclusive control (eg if Bayh-Dole is repealed in the USA), who will invest in clinical trial costs that need to be recouped via a period of inflated pricing?

The answer is government-funded, transparent, and statistically-robust clinical trials of drugs. Once a clinical trial is complete, private manufacturers can compete to produce the drugs at the lowest price by optimizing their manufacturing pipelines against a final product standard regulated by the FDA. If they want to run their own R & D divisions for drug development outside the taxpayer-financed university system to generate exclusive private patents, they certainly can - on their own dime. That’s an investment decision.

If you need to review why this government-linked, tightly regulated system is needed for drugs with clinical effects, just look up ‘patent medicine disasters of the early 20th century’.

the thing is while something is better than nothing, new drug development is critical

there is absolutely no cure for certain types of long-covid and me-cfs right now

no repurposing any drug is going to cure it, they've tried everything after six years

it will take a decade to have anything even in the pipeline and won't emerge from the USA because all medical and science research investment by the government has been destroyed by Russell Vought and Heritage Foundation

JAK-STAT inhibitors will be a big treatment, not a cure, but they cost thousands per month in the USA because generics aren't allowed

The prices of drugs in the USA are especially high. This is interesting because the USA claims to pursue a maximum capitalistic society - but if this were the case, you'd have competition in a free market. But you don't have that. You have a cartel (or rather more than one).

A pure capitalistic society works on assumptions that are not real. People are often cheaters. This would have to be taken into account. But when you have an orange Al Capone in charge, it is pillage day. Even before the orange King you had heavily overcharged prices in the health care system. You need to realise that you have a mafia in charge that does not want to change this system. Why kill the cow that you can milk for free?