Menú
Qué hay de nuevo
  • ¿Quieres apoyar a nuestro foro haciendo una donación?, entra aquí.

Escándalo: Acusan a Pfizer de ocultar posible cura contra el Alzéhimer.

blacklager

blacklager

Plasta Culiad@
Registrado
2011/06/10
Mensajes
13.920
Sexo
Macho
Cuando en enero del año pasado Pfizer anunció que ya no seguiría buscando nuevas medicinas para tratar el alzhéimer y la enfermedad de Parkinson, la decepción entre pacientes e investigadores fue fácilmente explicable.

pfizer1-b81ec6c7cbea178f2a1402a5632ee0a0-600x400.jpg


Para ese entonces, el gigante farmacéutico estadounidense ya había invertido infructuosamente millones de dólares en la búsqueda de alternativas para el tratamiento del alzhéimer, llegando a la conclusión de que su dinero estaría mejor invertido en otro lado.
Pfizer, de hecho, justificó la decisión como "el resultado de un ejercicio de reasignación de gastos para enfocarnos en aquellas áreas donde nuestra cartera de productos, y nuestra pericia científica, son más fuertes".

Pero, como acaba de develar The Washington Post, la empresa se cuidó de revelar que en su momento había optado por no comprobar ni compartir los resultados de un estudio con potenciales grandes implicaciones para la batalla contra el alzhéimer.

Y eso parece mucho más difícil de explicar, especialmente si se toma en cuenta que la demencia es considerada "el mayor reto en salud en nuestro tiempo".

El estudio que se ocultó se basó en el análisis de cientos de miles de reclamaciones de seguros, que arrojaron que una de las medicinas más populares de Pfeizer -Enbrel, un desinflamante empleado para tratar la artritis reumática- parecía reducir el riesgo de alzhéimer en un 64%.

"Enbrel podría potencialmente prevenir, tratar y retardar la progresión de la enfermedad de alzhéimer de forma segura", se lee en una presentación preparada para un comité interno de Pfeizer a inicios de 2018.

"Camino inválido"

"Pfizer dijo que optó por no publicar sus datos debido a sus dudas sobre los resultados. Dijo que la publicación de la información podría haber llevado a científicos externos por un camino inválido", se lee también en el reportaje del Post, que, sin embargo, también cita a prestigiosos científicos criticando la decisión de la farmacéutica.

"Por supuesto que deberían haberlo hecho. ¿Por qué no?", dijo por ejemplo Rudolph E. Tanzi, un prominente investigador del alzhéimer y profesor de la escuela de medicina de la universidad de Harvard.
a farmacéutica, sin embargo, le confirmó a The Washington Post que no solamente descartó realizar la prueba clínica que habría permitido comprobar o descartar esta hipótesis, sino que también decidió no hacer público el hallazgo.

"La compañía dijo (…) que durante sus tres años de revisiones internas decidió que Enbrel no se mostraba prometedora para la prevención del alzhéimer porque la droga no llega directamente al tejido cerebral", reportó el diario estadounidense.

"Disponer de esos datos sería útil para la comunidad científica. Todos los datos, sean positivos o negativos, nos dan más información para tomar mejores decisiones", coincidió Keenan Walker, otro estudioso del alzhéimer y profesor de medicina en la universidad Johns Hopkins.

Por lo demás, Pfizer ciertamente sabe muy bien que medicinas concebidas para tratar una condición pueden terminar siendo más útiles con otras, como demuestra el caso del Viagra.

La célebre pastilla azul fue desarrollada por la farmacéutica para combatir la hipertensión arterial pero terminó generándole decenas de miles de millones de dólares de ganancias como tratamiento contra la disfunción eréctil.

Pero no está probado que la historia se habría podido repetir con el Enbrel y el alzhéimer, entre otras cosas porque el medicamento ya no está protegido por una patente exclusiva, como sí ocurrió en su momento con Viagra.
Y para numerosos analistas, eso también habría podido explicar la decisión de Pfizer, aunque su vocero, Ed Harnaga, aseguró que las decisiones se habían basado exclusivamente en la ciencia.

FONT: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-48530398?ocid=socialflow_twitter

Para la elite antroniana acá un reportaje del medio anarco-comunista Washingon Post - EN INGLES
Pfizer had clues its blockbuster drug could prevent Alzheimer’s. Why didn’t it tell the world?



Pfizer had clues its drug could prevent Alzheimer’s. What happened?



Pfizer’s arthritis drug appeared to reduce the risk of getting Alzheimer’s disease. The Washington Post’s Chris Rowland explains why Pfizer did not pursue it. (Luis Velarde/The Washington Post)

By Christopher Rowland
June 4
A team of researchers inside Pfizer made a startling find in 2015: The company’s blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis therapy Enbrel, a powerful anti-inflammatory drug, appeared to reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease by 64 percent.

The results were from an analysis of hundreds of thousands of insurance claims. Verifying that the drug would actually have that effect in people would require a costly clinical trial — and after several years of internal discussion, Pfizer opted against further investigation and chose not to make the data public, the company confirmed.

Researchers in the company’s division of inflammation and immunology urged Pfizer to conduct a clinical trial on thousands of patients, which they estimated would cost $80 million, to see if the signal contained in the data was real, according to an internal company document obtained by The Washington Post.

“Enbrel could potentially safely prevent, treat and slow progression of Alzheimer’s disease,’’ said the document, a PowerPoint slide show that was prepared for review by an internal Pfizer committee in February 2018.

[The most expensive drug on the planet will treat infants with rare disease. The market fight focused on cost and safety is just getting started]

The company told The Post that it decided during its three years of internal reviews that Enbrel did not show promise for Alzheimer’s prevention because the drug does not directly reach brain tissue. It deemed the likelihood of a successful clinical trial to be low. A synopsis of its statistical findings prepared for outside publication, it says, did not meet its “rigorous scientific standards.’’


The surprising reasons why drug prices in the U.S. are higher than in the rest of the world

Pharma companies have raised prices for new drugs and commonly used medications, prompting many patients to order medications across the border. (Luis Velarde/The Washington Post)

Science was the sole determining factor against moving forward, company spokesman Ed Harnaga said.

Likewise, Pfizer said it opted against publication of its data because of its doubts about the results. It said publishing the information might have led outside scientists down an invalid pathway.

Pfizer’s deliberations, which previously have not been disclosed, offer a rare window into the frustrating search for Alzheimer’s treatments inside one of the world’s largest drug companies. Despite billions spent on research, Alzheimer’s remains a stubbornly prevalent disease with no effective prevention or treatment.

Some outside scientists disagree with Pfizer’s assessment that studying Enbrel’s potential in Alzheimer’s prevention is a scientific dead end. Rather, they say, it could hold important clues to combating the disease and slowing cognitive decline in its earliest stages.

[Why coming up with a drug for Alzheimer’s is so devilishly hard]

This $1,650 pill will tell your doctors whether you’ve taken it. Is it the future of medicine?]

As its Enbrel deliberations ended early last year, Pfizer was getting out of Alzheimer’s research. It announced in January 2018 that it would be shutting down its neurology division, where Alzheimer’s treatments were explored, and laying off 300 employees.

Meanwhile, Enbrel has reached the end of its patent life. Profits are dwindling as generic competition emerges, diminishing financial incentives for further research into Enbrel and other drugs in its class.

“I’m frustrated myself really by the whole thing,’’ said Clive Holmes, a professor of biological psychiatry at the University of Southampton in Great Britain who has received past support from Pfizer for Enbrel research in Alzheimer’s, a separate 2015 trial in 41 patients that proved inconclusive.

He said Pfizer and other companies do not want to invest heavily in further research only to have their markets undermined by generic competition.

“Someone can pop up and say, ‘Look, I’ve got a me-too drug here,’ ’’ Holmes said, referring to the advent of generic versions of Enbrel. “I think that is what this is all about.’’

Enbrel's 'life cycle'
The broader market forces that critics say discouraged Pfizer from investing in Alzheimer’s clinical trials are rooted in Enbrel’s “life cycle,’’ the 20-year period of patent exclusivity when a brand manufacturer reaps monopoly profits from a drug. By industry standards, Enbrel, an injectable biologic drug, is relatively old, with FDA approval for rheumatoid arthritis in 1998. It also has been approved to treat psoriasis.

[Drugmakers alleged scare tactics may hold back generic competition]

Pfizer got rights to market it internationally when it acquired drugmaker Wyeth in 2009. But Enbrel, which earned Pfizer $2.1 billion in 2018, now faces generic competition.

Drug companies often are criticized for extending the patent life of a drug — and winning new profits — by merely tweaking a drug’s molecule or changing the method of delivery into the body. But it is a “heavy lift’’ for a company to win regulatory approval to use a drug for a completely different disease, said Robert I. Field, a professor of law and health care management at Drexel University.

“Our patent laws do not provide the appropriate incentives,’’ Field said. Drug therapy for early Alzheimer’s “would be a godsend for American patients, so we should be doing everything we can as a country to encourage development of treatments. It’s frustrating that there may be a missed opportunity.’’

As Enbrel’s life cycle winds down, Pfizer has introduced a new rheumatoid arthritis drug, Xeljanz, that works differently from Enbrel. Pfizer is putting its marketing muscle behind the new treatment. While Enbrel revenue is shrinking, Xeljanz revenue is growing. The Xeljanz patent expires in 2025 in the United States and 2028 in Europe, according to Pfizer’s public disclosures. The drug is on track to make Pfizer billions more each year for the foreseeable future.

[Pharma giant profits from HIV treatment funded by taxpayers and patented by the government]

Wagering money on a clinical trial of Enbrel for an entirely different disease, especially when Pfizer had doubts about the validity of its internal analysis, made little business sense, said a former Pfizer executive who was aware of the internal debate and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal Pfizer matters.

“It probably was high risk, very costly, very long term drug development that was off-strategy,’’ the former executive said.

Another former executive, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss Pfizer operations, said Pfizer offered virtually no explanation internally for opting against further investigation in early 2018, when the internal debate ended.

“I think the financial case is they won’t be making any money off of it,’’ the second former executive said.

'Impeding research'
Drug companies frequently have been pilloried for not fully disclosing negative side effects of their drugs. What happens when the opposite is the case? What obligation does a company have to spread potentially beneficial information about a drug, especially when the benefits in question could improve the outlook for treating Alzheimer’s, a disease that afflicts at least 500,000 new patients per year?

A medical ethics expert argued that Pfizer has a responsibility to publicize positive findings, although it is not as strong as an imperative to disclose negative findings.

“Having acquired the knowledge, refusing to disclose it to those who might act upon it hides a potential benefit, and thereby wrongs and probably harms those at risk of developing Alzheimer’s by impeding research,’’ said Bobbie Farsides, professor of clinical and biomedical ethics at Brighton and Sussex Medical School in the United Kingdom.

Another health-care ethics specialist cautioned that the demand for drug company disclosure should remain focused on information collected during clinical trials.

“I do think you have to draw some limits, and say that not every piece of information they have in their files has to be disclosed with others,’’ said Marc A. Rodwin, a law professor at Suffolk University Law School in Boston.

Pfizer markets Enbrel outside North America. Another drug company, Amgen, which holds rights to market Enbrel in the United States and Canada, says it knew of the Pfizer data and similarly decided the findings held little promise. Amgen said market factors played no role in its deliberations.

“Unfortunately, our exploratory work did not yield results strong enough to warrant further studies,’’ Amgen said.

Analyzing insurance claims
Sometimes doctors prescribe drugs for uses that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. But none of the experts interviewed for this story said such “off-label’’ use of Enbrel would be appropriate for Alzheimer’s, because of the very limited nature of the data thus far. Nor, they said, do they believe such prescribing is happening to any significant extent.

The role of brain inflammation in Alzheimer’s recently has been getting closer attention among academics after the failure of multiple experimental drugs that targeted the buildup of plaques on brain tissue. In 2016, researchers from Dartmouth and Harvard universities published a study of insurance claims data — similar to Pfizer’s internal findings — that showed a potential benefit of Enbrel. Enbrel “shows promise as a potential treatment’’ for Alzheimer’s, the study found.

Pfizer’s analysis about potential Enbrel benefits in the brain sprang from the company’s division of immunology and inflammation, based in a large Pfizer office complex in Collegeville, Pa.

Statisticians in 2015 analyzed real world data, hundreds of thousands of medical insurance claims involving people with rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, according to the Pfizer PowerPoint obtained by The Post.

They divided those anonymous patients into two equal groups of 127,000 each, one of patients with an Alzheimer’s diagnosis and one of patients without. Then they checked for Enbrel treatment. There were more people, 302, treated with Enbrel in the group without Alzheimer’s diagnosis. In the group with Alzheimer’s, 110 had been treated with Enbrel.

The numbers may seem small, but they were mirrored in the same proportion when the researchers checked insurance claims information from another database. The Pfizer team also produced closely similar numbers for Humira, a drug marketed by AbbVie that works like Enbrel. The positive results also showed up when checked for “memory loss’’ and “mild cognitive impairment,’’ indicating Enbrel may have benefit for treating the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s.

A clinical trial to prove the hypothesis would take four years and involve 3,000 to 4,000 patients, according to the Pfizer document that recommended a trial. The document said Pfizer would gain a positive public relations “halo effect’’ by investigating an Alzheimer’s treatment.

Enbrel reduces inflammation by targeting a specific protein called TNF-a. The Pfizer claims data analysis added to a growing body of evidence that broadly targeting TNF-a in the body has the potential to prevent Alzheimer’s, said Holmes, the professor of biological psychiatry at the University of Southampton.

Holmes is among the few researchers who has gained access to the Pfizer data; he won the company’s permission to use it in a grant application for a small clinical trial he is undertaking in England.

“If it’s true in reality, if you did it in a clinical trial setting, it’s massive — it would be huge,’’ Holmes said. “That’s why it’s so exciting.’’

One reason for caution: another class of anti-inflammatory therapies, called non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), showed no effect against mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s in several clinical trials a decade ago. Still, a long-term follow-up of one of those trials indicated a benefit if NSAID use began when the brain was still normal, suggesting the timing of therapy could be key.

Pfizer said it also was skeptical because Enbrel has only a limited effect on the brain. The Enbrel molecule is too large to pass through the “blood-brain barrier’’ and directly target TNF-a in brain tissue, the company said.

Yet Alzheimer’s researchers believe inflammation outside the brain — called peripheral inflammation — influences inflammation within the brain.

“There is a lot of evidence suggesting that peripheral or systemic inflammation may be a driver of Alzheimer’s disease,’’ said Walker, the Johns Hopkins researcher. It is a fair hypothesis that fighting inflammation outside the brain with Enbrel will have a similar effect inside the brain, he said.

“I don’t believe Enbrel would need to cross the blood brain barrier to modulate the inflammatory/immune response within the brain,’’ Walker said.

“There is increasing evidence that peripheral inflammation can influence brain function,’’ said rheumatologist Christopher Edwards, of the University of Southampton in Britain.

“It’s important that that’s published, and in the public domain,’’ Edward added of the Pfizer data. “It needs to be out there.’’

Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated the location of the Brighton and Sussex Medical School.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fd8bf5b329b5
Click para expandir ...
 
No es que esté de lado de estos asquerosos, pero como dijeron arriba, si es una compañía privada y no reciben financiamiento del gobierno donde operan, no tienen por qué estar obligados a revelar sus descubrimientos. Lamentablemente la salud es un negocio para las farmacéuticas, y a ellos no les conviene crear curas milagrosas.
 
VieJoeLosCHoCLo dijo:
No es que esté de lado de estos asquerosos, pero como dijeron arriba, si es una compañía privada y no reciben financiamiento del gobierno donde operan, no tienen por qué estar obligados a revelar sus descubrimientos. Lamentablemente la salud es un negocio para las farmacéuticas, y a ellos no les conviene crear curas milagrosas.
Click para expandir ...

no es tan así, al trabajar en estudios de salud ellos así como tienen ciertas regalías como la patente exclusiva por 10 años creo, también tienen la obligación de dar a conocer sus avances en cuanto a los estudios que están realizando.

la cosa no anda na al lote hermano.
 
Ellos pueden ocupar sus descubrimientos en privado solo por 10 años, pasado ese tiempo estan obligados a hacer publico sus avances.
 
siempre los laboratorios han generado polémica con hueas como que inventan enfermedades, prueban sus medicamentos en el 3 mundo, ocultan tratamientos y así... en fin el apellido pfizer ya da para pensar
 
weon, salio en la bbc, la wea cuantica :amazed:

se dan cuenta? se destapó que a los laboratorios sólo les importan las lucas, es un hito universal esta wea :naster:
(cosa q todos suponiamos, pero ahora se demostró)
 
twiterodecentro dijo:
si yo descubro algo no tengo obligacion legal de compartirlo.
Click para expandir ...

¿Quién te dijo éso? por último sería válido si lo haces en tu casa con recursos propios, ellos tienen un montón de beneficios e investigaciones conjuntas con otras instituciones, más encima pagan las campañas políticas, por lo tanto si somos justos se les podría secar por coecho y a sus trabajadores colgarlos por el equivalente a la traición a la patria. Por ultimo hace unos pocos años un chileno hizo descubrimientos importantes sobre enfermedades neurodegenerativas, lo llevaron a Usa (el mismo lo dijo en una entrevista) y no se habló más del tema.

Por favor paren con la mentira de que ellos empezaron solos y que siempre han sido de los trigos limpios, ser biólogo molecular es más peligroso que trabajar de guardia.
 
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para participar.
Volver
Arriba