By Tom VierdengeThe pharmaceutical industry is starting to look towards the ’emerging’ in a new direction.
The drug company that dominates the market, Pfizer, recently said that its future focus will be on ’emergent cures’.
Pfizer chief executive David Perdue told investors that it will be using the new strategy to create ‘an environment where the next generation of drugs can be developed and sold without fear of regulatory hurdles’.’
We want to be part of a virtuous cycle where innovations are brought into the marketplace through our clinical development programs, but are also tested on patients through our preclinical and clinical testing programs,’ he said.
In a similar vein, the US Drug Administration said that it was looking to ‘enhance the quality and efficiency of research and development’ to create a ‘truly innovative medicine market’.
Purdue Pharma also said that their ‘core competency’ is ‘innovating, developing, and delivering innovative medicines that are clinically relevant and safe’.’
Our goal is to make it easier for our patients to access and use these medicines safely, effectively, and at a lower cost,’ it said.
A pharma-friendly outlookThe US pharmaceutical industry has had a fairly ‘pharmacoeconomic’ good for the last few years.
In fact, it has managed to keep a healthy profit margin of $2.5bn in the first quarter of 2018, with a total of more than $4.2bn in revenue.
That said, the company has been accused of taking too much of the pie, particularly in the US.
Its CEO, Andrew Hoffman, has been criticised for charging the NHS for drug trials that were ‘overly aggressive’ and ‘unnecessary’.
It also took over a $5bn government bailout to avoid going under, and has been facing the prospect of being bought out by another company, AstraZeneca.
The pharmaceutical sector has also been the target of a number of controversies in recent years, most notably over its treatment of a woman with a rare form of breast cancer.
It is not just about cost-cutting, however, as many of these controversies have had far-reaching implications for the health and safety of patients.
A major issue is that the drug industry is increasingly focusing on ‘pharmacogenomics’, which involves developing new drugs from the genetic code.
This means that scientists are trying to develop drugs that can be grown on a particular cell type and then injected into a patient’s body.
The idea is that they can then be tested on a specific patient in order to determine if the drugs work.
The process has led to several high-profile incidents, including a deadly outbreak in California involving a patient whose body had to be switched to prevent the disease spreading.
In the case of the new study, the researchers said they were looking to produce a ‘preclinical drug for the treatment of an aggressive breast cancer’ based on the data they had gathered in a previous clinical trial.
This is a very aggressive breast tumour.
The patient was treated for four years with a standard course of chemotherapy, with no success.
But when the researchers added a gene-editing tool to the treatment, the treatment produced a tumour that was nearly twice as aggressive as normal, and the patient survived for six months.
The patient had no symptoms, and her cancer disappeared almost immediately.
The study was the first to use gene-edited cells for the production of ‘predictable’ drugs, but they were initially seen as a way of making more money from their development.
The company is currently working on a gene editing tool that would be able to make the cells grow in a certain shape, allowing them to be injected into the patient’s bloodstream.
The trial involved an average of 11 patients in the United States and Canada, with the researchers aiming to see if this could be used in patients with other forms of breast tumours.
The US Department of Justice, however a US Federal Trade Commission complaint was filed against Purdue Pharma in November 2018, claiming that the study was ‘misleading’ and that it should be investigated for possible deceptive practices.
The FTC also criticised the study for not disclosing that it had ‘substantial data’ from two previous studies, which had already shown that gene-edit therapies had some potential to work.