Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever

67
26
Favorite

Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever

LA Times2021-06-17

The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...

Source Link

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

Report

Comment（26）

Miao94
·2021-06-18
[微笑]
Reply
Like
Report
PotterHeads
·2021-06-18
?
Reply
Like
Report
SandDust
·2021-06-18
Covid had shown that government can drive the private into successfully create wffective vaccine within a short period of time. We need the same for cancer and HIV cure?! Please like and comment
Reply
Like
Report
BTSL
·2021-06-18
?
Reply
Like
Report
Fold Replies
- Melodykjh:
  C
  2021-06-18
  Reply
  Report
L8W
·2021-06-18
Cool
Reply
Like
Report
WaiYC
·2021-06-18
Overall stock price still go up a lot after the approval.
Reply
2
Report
paxxie
·2021-06-18
pls like and comment
Reply
2
Report
Fold Replies
- yvneyng:
  Here you go
  2021-06-18
  Reply
  Report
梁娜娜本人
·2021-06-18
Indeed
Reply
Like
Report
AmateurI
·2021-06-18
Ok
Reply
Like
Report
azotest
·2021-06-18
Comment
Reply
2
Report
JustinNJM
·2021-06-18
.
Reply
2
Report
min_58
·2021-06-18
test
Reply
Like
Report
TanHY
·2021-06-18
They must be rushing it for Biden. ?
Reply
Like
Report
Black83black
·2021-06-18
Hi
Reply
Like
Report
Invest SA 2
·2021-06-18
Can buy?
Reply
Like
Report
Fold Replies
- EmmaS:
  In some time…
  2021-06-18
  Reply
  Report
LinhTan
·2021-06-18
Really?
Reply
1
Report
Biancaneve
·2021-06-18
HUAT ah
Reply
Like
Report
Atcb
·2021-06-18
Why the rush?
Reply
Like
Report
Junboytennis
·2021-06-18
Rushing
Reply
3
Report
Angyuxian
·2021-06-18
Unscrupulous
Reply
Like
Report

Most Discussed

7x24

All

Terms and Conditions·Privacy Policy

Company: TTMF Limited. Tech supported by Xiangshang Yixin.

Email：uservice@ttm.financial

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"data":{"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2144690742?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","id":"2144690742","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","media":"LA Times","content":"<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"yahoofinance","html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Source Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":"BIIB","symbol_name":"渤健公司","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","article_id":"2144690742","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"sourceInfo":{"source_id":"yahoofinance","name":"雅虎金融"},"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"yahoo.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"translate_title":"专栏：美国食品药品管理局仓促批准一种新的老年痴呆症药物看起来比以往任何时候都糟糕","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{"BIIB":0.9},"content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","kind":null,"is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":false,"is_publish_live":null,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":1},"commentList":[{"id":168587018,"gmtCreate":1623978789034,"gmtModify":1703825256609,"author":{"id":"3581763489080929","authorId":"3581763489080929","name":"Miao94","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/34f3df2688773fe9bc20c385589224ea","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","listText":"[微笑]&nbsp;","text":"[微笑]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168587018","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"CN"},{"id":168650537,"gmtCreate":1623974670229,"gmtModify":1703825005563,"author":{"id":"3559774895247525","authorId":"3559774895247525","name":"PotterHeads","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/eae925838b30f0e74fb1eae47a84c3b1","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"?","listText":"?","text":"?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168650537","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":168632436,"gmtCreate":1623973597925,"gmtModify":1703824948611,"author":{"id":"3581331938298103","authorId":"3581331938298103","name":"SandDust","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ea6083d742fc232449a625fb122842c8","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Covid had shown that government can drive the private into successfully create wffective vaccine within a short period of time. We need the same for&nbsp;cancer and HIV&nbsp;cure?!&nbsp;Please like and comment&nbsp;","listText":"Covid had shown that government can drive the private into successfully create wffective vaccine within a short period of time. We need the same for&nbsp;cancer and HIV&nbsp;cure?!&nbsp;Please like and comment&nbsp;","text":"Covid had shown that government can drive the private into successfully create wffective vaccine within a short period of time. We need the same for cancer and HIV cure?! Please like and comment","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168632436","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":168892532,"gmtCreate":1623970219026,"gmtModify":1703824796855,"author":{"id":"3580599125887502","authorId":"3580599125887502","name":"BTSL","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"?","listText":"?","text":"?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168892532","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4849753,"gmtCreate":1623971111381,"gmtModify":1663229206940,"authorId":3578543878235243,"author":{"id":3578543878235243,"authorId":3578543878235243,"name":"Melodykjh","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ecbb1673398e9c20ba51196d1fc7f00b","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":168892532,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"C","text":"C","html":"C"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":168806736,"gmtCreate":1623969768325,"gmtModify":1703824782333,"author":{"id":"3571377458712056","authorId":"3571377458712056","name":"L8W","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Cool","listText":"Cool","text":"Cool","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168806736","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":168175034,"gmtCreate":1623969216228,"gmtModify":1703824768788,"author":{"id":"3581582755321781","authorId":"3581582755321781","name":"WaiYC","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/26ed8c5d2350cff5c6413967da9319b1","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Overall stock price still go up a lot after the approval.","listText":"Overall stock price still go up a lot after the approval.","text":"Overall stock price still go up a lot after the approval.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168175034","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":168143447,"gmtCreate":1623968387689,"gmtModify":1703824748793,"author":{"id":"3559522411638426","authorId":"3559522411638426","name":"paxxie","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"pls like and comment&nbsp;","listText":"pls like and comment&nbsp;","text":"pls like and comment","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168143447","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4850415,"gmtCreate":1623972445959,"gmtModify":1663229209035,"authorId":3585192718156791,"author":{"id":3585192718156791,"authorId":3585192718156791,"name":"yvneyng","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76e9d3dda84e38df5f92fb2edf5f1be0","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":168143447,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Here you go","text":"Here you go","html":"Here you go"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":168118385,"gmtCreate":1623964431147,"gmtModify":1703824685077,"author":{"id":"3573131687370671","authorId":"3573131687370671","name":"梁娜娜本人","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/0621ca24acbe93afcdca93761ac78994","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Indeed","listText":"Indeed","text":"Indeed","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168118385","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":168137321,"gmtCreate":1623963482063,"gmtModify":1703824676834,"author":{"id":"3569706111463394","authorId":"3569706111463394","name":"AmateurI","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168137321","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":168100965,"gmtCreate":1623956638257,"gmtModify":1703824640711,"author":{"id":"3579653595425309","authorId":"3579653595425309","name":"azotest","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9bd8f412814fbaeb758280a91014dd5a","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":1},"htmlText":"Comment","listText":"Comment","text":"Comment","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168100965","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":168355816,"gmtCreate":1623953627335,"gmtModify":1703824610231,"author":{"id":"3574859655754950","authorId":"3574859655754950","name":"JustinNJM","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":".","listText":".","text":".","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168355816","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":168359359,"gmtCreate":1623952935971,"gmtModify":1703824601167,"author":{"id":"3581688877308896","authorId":"3581688877308896","name":"min_58","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"test","listText":"test","text":"test","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168359359","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":168325397,"gmtCreate":1623952591219,"gmtModify":1703824596800,"author":{"id":"3578351992666848","authorId":"3578351992666848","name":"TanHY","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"They must be rushing it for Biden. ?","listText":"They must be rushing it for Biden. ?","text":"They must be rushing it for Biden. ?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168325397","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":168368022,"gmtCreate":1623951439866,"gmtModify":1703824578654,"author":{"id":"3576542985729070","authorId":"3576542985729070","name":"Black83black","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/dc5940f5fefb9966b35345e7dd1aa9b8","vip":1,"hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a3dee1aa3a3a3c1814833a4d3f8a5669","crmLevel":8,"crmLevelSwitch":1},"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168368022","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":168361534,"gmtCreate":1623951426428,"gmtModify":1703824578489,"author":{"id":"3581937708618440","authorId":"3581937708618440","name":"Invest SA 2","avatar":"https://static.itradeup.com/news/c0577e5faa40d98a39949ebab8fcaca7","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Can buy?","listText":"Can buy?","text":"Can buy?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168361534","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":4848225,"gmtCreate":1623961235035,"gmtModify":1663229198733,"authorId":3586198471249922,"author":{"id":3586198471249922,"authorId":3586198471249922,"name":"EmmaS","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/41fa8b7739afa8f029d077d18c6201ab","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":168361534,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"In some time…","text":"In some time…","html":"In some time…"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":168385296,"gmtCreate":1623950973815,"gmtModify":1703824570616,"author":{"id":"3587018017868979","authorId":"3587018017868979","name":"LinhTan","avatar":"https://community-static.tradeup.com/news/a6dc94224dc2521fb926b0b81661b7d3","vip":1,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Really?","listText":"Really?","text":"Really?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168385296","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":168383263,"gmtCreate":1623950668652,"gmtModify":1703824563392,"author":{"id":"3582282988628365","authorId":"3582282988628365","name":"Biancaneve","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c690c91e593d663e5b2aa7fa7a45cead","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"HUAT ah","listText":"HUAT ah","text":"HUAT ah","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168383263","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":168331877,"gmtCreate":1623949588799,"gmtModify":1703824537965,"author":{"id":"3586480947539515","authorId":"3586480947539515","name":"Atcb","avatar":"https://static.itradeup.com/news/2ed44e4b5d277de09a787ef1f84de5af","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Why the rush?","listText":"Why the rush?","text":"Why the rush?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168331877","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":168954379,"gmtCreate":1623947788891,"gmtModify":1703824471516,"author":{"id":"3575032921579900","authorId":"3575032921579900","name":"Junboytennis","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6c0afbbf5589f1409868c980c95084e3","vip":1,"hat":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ae1f49570794979e009a5efdeb6f4789","crmLevel":9,"crmLevelSwitch":1},"htmlText":"Rushing","listText":"Rushing","text":"Rushing","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168954379","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":168955848,"gmtCreate":1623947776084,"gmtModify":1703824470190,"author":{"id":"3581502407685258","authorId":"3581502407685258","name":"Angyuxian","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0},"htmlText":"Unscrupulous&nbsp;","listText":"Unscrupulous&nbsp;","text":"Unscrupulous","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/168955848","repostId":2144690742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2144690742","pubTimestamp":1623942044,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2144690742?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 23:00","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2144690742","media":"LA Times","summary":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the F","content":"<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5a6526be3c93006ee9d37664f7f4650b\" tg-width=\"840\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis.&nbsp;</p>\n<p>Following a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.</p>\n<p>It's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.</p>\n<p>The latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.</p>\n<blockquote>\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Altarum consultants</p>\n<p>According to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.</p>\n<p>The drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.</p>\n<p>That will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.</p>\n<p>If 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.</p>\n<p>Many Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.</p>\n<p>It gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.</p>\n<p>This isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.</p>\n<p>Those drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.</p>\n<p>But there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,</p>\n<p>But Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a>-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"</p>\n<p>The organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"</p>\n<p>As bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.</p>\n<p>The 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWOA.U\">Two</a> other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.</p>\n<p>Alzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.</p>\n<p>Patients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.</p>\n<p>The longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.</p>\n<p>The drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.</p>\n<p>Aaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.</p>\n<p>The FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.</p>\n<p>But it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.</p>\n<p>This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Column: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nColumn: The FDA's hasty approval of a new Alzheimer's drug is looking worse than ever\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-17 23:00 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html><strong>LA Times</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"BIIB":"渤健公司"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-fdas-hasty-approval-alzheimers-144244083.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2144690742","content_text":"The FDA's decision on Aduhelm sets up a healthcare spending crisis. \nFollowing a year in which the Food and Drug Administration meekly allowed President Trump to denigrate its integrity and undermine its judgment, it wasn't clear that the agency could fall even lower in public and professional esteem.\nIt's clear now. The FDA's widely criticized decision on June 7 to approve the new Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm despite a nearly complete absence of evidence that it works is looking worse and worse with every day that passes.\nThe latest data point underscoring the disastrous consequences of the FDA approval is related to the sky-high average price of $56,000 a year for the drug set by its U.S. manufacturer, Biogen.\n\n The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\n\nAltarum consultants\nAccording to a report by the nonprofit healthcare consulting organization Altarum, if the drug is prescribed for only 1 million patients a year — the low end of Biogen's marketing expectations — by the mid-2020s it will account for more than 1% of all national health spending. In 2025, for instance, when total spending is expected to reach abut $5.3 trillion, $57 billion of that will be spent on Aduhelm.\nThe drug will increase all prescription drug spending by 8% and non-retail drug spending — that is, for drugs that have to be administered in hospitals or doctors' offices — by 25%. If the patient caseload doubles, so will those figures. And the FDA's approval would allow Aduhelm to be prescribed for any of the nation's Alzheimer's patients, who currently number more than 6 million.\nThat will impose higher costs on 56 million Americans enrolled in Medicare Part B even if they don't suffer from Alzheimer's, the Kaiser Family Foundation observes. That's because Medicare is required by law to cover all prescription medicines approved by the FDA. Part B premiums rise with Medicare's expenses, so the higher spending on Adulhelm will hit all premium payers in the pocketbook.\nIf 1 million Part B members take Aduhelm, the program's 80% share of the drug's cost would come to nearly $45 billion, or well more than the $37 billion Medicare paid for all Part B drugs in 2019.\nMany Medicare patients taking the drug will be hard-pressed to afford it, KFF notes. Their 20%, uncapped share of Part B drug and services costs would mean an average bill of $11,200 per year for the drug. That's almost 40% of the $29,650 median income of Medicare Part B members.\nIt gets worse. Altarum's estimates don't encompass the ancillary costs that will be associated with taking Aduhelm. Because the clinical trials revealed that about 30% of patients receiving a high dose of the drug experienced brain swelling, patients will have to undergo regular MRI tests to watch out for this dangerous side effect. They'll have to pay their share of that, too.\nThis isn't the first time that a new drug has threatened to break the national healthcare bank. The best comparison may be the hepatitis-C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni, which were priced by their developer, Gilead, at $84,000 and nearly $100,000 per year, respectively.\nThose drugs drove annual growth in retail prescription spending from 2.2% in 2013 to 13.5% in 2014, after their introduction, Altarum says.\nBut there are differences. Sovaldi and Harvoni cured more than 90% of hepatitis-C patients after a single round of treatment, so the spending on any patient lasted less than a year; measuring their cost against the cost of treating hepatitis-C patients indefinitely made the cost-benefit balance obvious. Indeed, by 2016, when most patients had been treated, the prescription growth rate fell back to 1.7%,\nBut Aduhelm is neither a cure nor a one-time treatment. \"Aduhelm is to be administered repeatedly throughout the patient’s lifetime or until the patient and his or her physician elect to discontinue treatment,\" Altarum explains. \"The resultant growth in spending will therefore be sustained for the foreseeable future.\"\nThe organization's bottom line: \"The limited evidence for the efficacy of Aduhelm raises the question of whether its large impact on health spending is justified.\"\nAs bad as the FDA's decision is looking today, it didn't start out as a widely praised action, either. As we reported last week, one member of the FDA scientific advisory committee that had examined results from the drug's clinical trials pronounced the action \"probably the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history” in a letter resigning from the committee.\nThe 11-member committee had advised almost unanimously against the approval. Two other members also resigned after the FDA ignored the panel's recommendation.\nAlzheimer's specialists are concerned about the FDA decision for more than financial reasons. They fear that the existence of a drug with the FDA's imprimatur, as questionable as it is, will interfere with efforts to develop and test other treatments that may turn out to be more promising.\nPatients may be reluctant to enroll in trials of alternative drugs instead of taking Aduhelm, for example. And researchers trying to recruit trial subjects will have to reject anyone who has been treated with Aduhelm, because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a given result is due to Aduhelm or the new drug.\nThe longest-lasting effect, however, may be on the FDA's reputation for imposing rigorous safety and efficacy standards. The pharmaceutical industry has long groused about the agency's painstaking approval process, even though it has given the American drug market an image as the safest in the world.\nThe drugmakers have consistently pushed for faster approvals and the acceptance of ever more sketchy evidence from clinical trials.\nAaron S. Kesselheim, the Harvard professor who delivered that damning judgment about the FDA approval before resigning from its advisory panel, has called for the creation of a new agency to oversee drug approvals, presumably inoculated from pressure from Big Pharma.\nThe FDA's approval of a high-priced, apparently low-value drug that will yield billions of dollars in profits for its manufacturer may even spur Congress finally to take America's drug-price crisis in hand and find a solution. That could be the silver lining around the cloud of the FDA's action.\nBut it will be a shame that an agency that reigned as a bulwark against unsafe and ineffective drugs since its founding in 1906 had to fall so low to achieve that goal.\nThis story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"}],"hasMoreComments":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":67,"commentSize":26,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false}}