Veraflox dilemma

Re: Veraflox dilemma

Martin Atkinson — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:53:57 GMT

Let's not forget that large pharmaceutical companies make a fortune and the veterinary market (although it is still huge) is a fraction of the human market: the single best selling human product sells more than the whole veterinary market combined. 99% of drugs are developed for human use and then adapted/re-licensed for the veterinary market so the cost of the original R&D is covered and it is a bit on the side for them really (well rather a lot actually). OK so pradofloxacin appears to have been specifically developed as a veterinary product but don't feel too sorry for them, being as a licence was initially refused on safety and quality issues, the likelihood is that it was originally developed for human use, had lots of human trials and was rejected but Bayer found a way of using it. Or is that just the cynic in me?

Re: Veraflox dilemma

Mark Holmes — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 00:07:51 GMT

Don't misunderstand me. My only concern is that we get investment in the profession and animal health but the only source of investment are the pharma companies. Clearly we cannot support misuse of drugs to provide them revenue but maybe we should at least recognising their efforts where we can. Next time a rep appears it is something I will discuss with them and if a company is simply taking from the industry rather than investing in it, I may be less inclined to use their products.

Re: Veraflox dilemma

SteveOwen — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 18:25:25 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]I'm not in favour of profiteering

[/quote]

Remind me not to go into partnership with you. It does annoy me when vets criticise pharmas for wanting to make money, but have no shame in wanting to make money themselves. Not that I am saying you are necessarily guilty of that: there are genuinely vets out there who aren't bothered about making money. Crazy. But those who want to make money themselves but criticise the pharmas: crazy. Apart from anything, if the pharmas didn't have bean counters, they wouldn't exist at all....no drugs...back to the Herriot days...

Please don't worry about Bayer...they know what they're doing....they'll be making money out of Veraflox! I'm sure you're just playing devil's advocate and noone would ever actually use a product just to encourage R&D!

As for MDR ear infections....drug resistance is dose dependent and doesn't usually apply to topical treatment of otitis as the concentrations are so high.

Re: Veraflox dilemma

Andrew Kent — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 18:15:21 GMT

Interesting discussion Mark, I was thinking this to myself just the other day and I think the idea of longer patents is a good one. I think if patent length is kept as it is at present then either there will be no innovation or the cost of drugs will be prohibitive (I'm thinking Palladia/Masivet here).

When Bayer spoke to me about Veraflox and I raised concerns about its over use the response was essentially - you are lucky to get any new drugs. Surely it is not up to us to use an unjustified drug just because a drug company has brought a molecule to market that there is not a big market for. I agree this is potentially a useful drug in a small number of cases but there is no way it should be considered for half the indications that Bayer would sell it for. I wouldn't, however, have a problem with this drug being expensive because I think it will have a niche market and could occupy this well.

I agree that there is some truth that we need to embrace new products in order to encourage further drug developments but this has limits.

Andy

Re: Veraflox dilemma

Mark Holmes — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 18:07:07 GMT

This is my point, current "best practice" with regards to prescribing may be doing more harm than good in the long term. Veraflox on the face of it looks like a very useful drug eventually but currently if best practice is followed I don't see a huge market for it. I see the occasional multi resistant ear infection but they usually respond with some thought. If Veraflox is a drug of last resort as it should be what return will there be. Maybe there is a good argument for 25 year patents to encourage innovation. I'm not in favour of profiteering but we need investment for the future and any investment must make a return.

Re: Veraflox dilemma

Robert Whiteford — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 17:53:34 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]You get your 10 year protection, that's when you have to make your money back.[/quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that the ten year rule was from when you patent the drug, so by the time you have then done the trials and the red tape thing you may only have half that time to recoup your R&D costs - thus the huge drop in cost when the drug runs out of patent - they have actually had quite a short time to make money and they also look like they were profiteering when the generic comes on stream at a fraction of the originators price!

Re: Veraflox dilemma

Michael Woodhouse — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 17:40:58 GMT

[quote user="SteveOwen"] Generally in agreement in avoiding generic only money grabbers mind.[/quote]

I tend to disagree. We will move to cheaper generics wherever possible as it lets us maintain (or increase) our margin and offer the product to the end user for less. Doing this means that (so far) we have never yet had to write a prescription. We've had people ask, look to see what we can do and come back with something close. With the prescription fee they realise they would be better off.

You get your 10 year protection, that's when you have to make your money back.

Re: Veraflox dilemma

SteveOwen — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 17:14:34 GMT

Hmm nice idea but too difficult I think! Use Baytril because Bayer have invested in Veraflox? What about a company that makes a generic enrofloxacin but otherwise invests more in veterinary drugs? After all, I don't really think of Bayer as having offered us much of excitement over the years. Generally in agreement in avoiding generic only money grabbers mind.