I think there is a real irony that we have a drug useful in treating so many different conditions, and the reaction is that this is "bad" because it makes it hard to sell people other drugs.
I think there is a real irony that we have a drug useful in treating so many different conditions, and the reaction is that this is "bad" because it makes it hard to sell people other drugs.
The focus on financials is a bit weird in the coverage. There is real concern about the prevalence of off-label uses on drugs like this, because they're really only tested based on their on-label...
The focus on financials is a bit weird in the coverage. There is real concern about the prevalence of off-label uses on drugs like this, because they're really only tested based on their on-label usage and that testing does include some amount of assumption as to the balance of risk and reward from the treatment.
Just going off and prescribing it for all sorts of stuff, not really knowing what the long-term side effects might be, is a little dangerous. It might not be in this specific case (I'm not really sure TBH), but as a general practice it makes me nervous.
The company has either done or is doing clinical trials for all of the uses mentioned in the article. E.g. they just ended their kidney trials early at the recommendation of a 3rd party watchdog...
The company has either done or is doing clinical trials for all of the uses mentioned in the article. E.g. they just ended their kidney trials early at the recommendation of a 3rd party watchdog because they were going so well. It’s not “on-label” yet but it likely will be soon.
Wouldn't its long-term side effects be the same no matter the intended treatment? Or is it an issue where the unknown long-term viability of the drug is worth it for its primary use but may cause...
Wouldn't its long-term side effects be the same no matter the intended treatment? Or is it an issue where the unknown long-term viability of the drug is worth it for its primary use but may cause more harm than it solves for off-label uses?
Yeah exactly. So you might be willing to accept higher risk of complications after 20 years of use if the issue you're treating with it (e.g. diabetes) is likely to take years off a person's life....
Or is it an issue where the unknown long-term viability of the drug is worth it for its primary use but may cause more harm than it solves for off-label uses?
Yeah exactly. So you might be willing to accept higher risk of complications after 20 years of use if the issue you're treating with it (e.g. diabetes) is likely to take years off a person's life. But adding the same additional risk to treat simply being overweight without associated health issues might not be as high.
All things being equal, probably. But all things are rarely equal. For example, Other issues might involve other medications which have not been tested for safe interaction withe off-label...
All things being equal, probably.
But all things are rarely equal. For example, Other issues might involve other medications which have not been tested for safe interaction withe off-label medication. Ther also might be other factors not considered in the original trials that are present only with the off-label use.
It has been posted before but this drug is so successful that it has caused the economy of my entire country (Denmark) to see almost 2% growth. Without this drug and company the economy would be...
It has been posted before but this drug is so successful that it has caused the economy of my entire country (Denmark) to see almost 2% growth. Without this drug and company the economy would be stagnant.
One single company is the reason the Danish economy is doing so well
After several years with the red crisis lights switched on, Finance Minister Nicolai Wammen (S) announced on Thursday that the Danish economy is "strong as a rock".
And in many ways, this is thanks to a single company, the pharmaceutical giant Novo Nordisk.
Denmark is currently enjoying decent growth in gross domestic product (GDP), but if you take the pharmaceutical industry, led by Novo Nordisk, out of the equation, things would look very different.
- For the economy outside the pharmaceutical industry, the best we can say is that there is stagnation. We don't really have any growth," says Las Olsen, Chief Economist at Danske Bank.
Novo Nordisk has enjoyed tremendous success with its popular diabetes drug Ozempic and the weight loss drug Wegovy, which is in huge demand.
Earlier this month, the company presented its second quarter results with a profit of DKK 19.4 billion after tax.
I think there is a real irony that we have a drug useful in treating so many different conditions, and the reaction is that this is "bad" because it makes it hard to sell people other drugs.
The focus on financials is a bit weird in the coverage. There is real concern about the prevalence of off-label uses on drugs like this, because they're really only tested based on their on-label usage and that testing does include some amount of assumption as to the balance of risk and reward from the treatment.
Just going off and prescribing it for all sorts of stuff, not really knowing what the long-term side effects might be, is a little dangerous. It might not be in this specific case (I'm not really sure TBH), but as a general practice it makes me nervous.
It's a feature article in the Businessweek section of Bloomberg, so the focus on financials and market impact is expected.
The company has either done or is doing clinical trials for all of the uses mentioned in the article. E.g. they just ended their kidney trials early at the recommendation of a 3rd party watchdog because they were going so well. It’s not “on-label” yet but it likely will be soon.
Wouldn't its long-term side effects be the same no matter the intended treatment? Or is it an issue where the unknown long-term viability of the drug is worth it for its primary use but may cause more harm than it solves for off-label uses?
Yeah exactly. So you might be willing to accept higher risk of complications after 20 years of use if the issue you're treating with it (e.g. diabetes) is likely to take years off a person's life. But adding the same additional risk to treat simply being overweight without associated health issues might not be as high.
All things being equal, probably.
But all things are rarely equal. For example, Other issues might involve other medications which have not been tested for safe interaction withe off-label medication. Ther also might be other factors not considered in the original trials that are present only with the off-label use.
It has been posted before but this drug is so successful that it has caused the economy of my entire country (Denmark) to see almost 2% growth. Without this drug and company the economy would be stagnant.
https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/penge/en-enkelt-virksomhed-er-grunden-til-det-gaar-saa-godt-dansk-oekonomi
I'll have to read it later, as the archive.ph website never works for me so the article remains paywalled, sadly
This works quite well for me: https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean
https://archive.ph/lz81i