Post by
Johnandrose22 on Apr 27, 2023 4:52pm
An Interesting Discussion
This morning I was speaking with one of my clients who happens to be an experienced and successful pharmaceutical representative. As my client was explaining to me various dimensions of his profession he mentioned a new indication called "Padcev" which recently received FDA Accelerated Approval for use in MIBC. He was very excited about the medication's results, thus far, but then he spoke about side effects. He said "When I speak to an oncologist the primary concern they have is side effects...even before efficacy at times. I have to memorize pages and pages of side effects for each drug we sell because that's important to MDs". Apparently, Padcev has various side effects, including body rashes that could be lethal.
I share this with the board because my discussion immediately brought to mind Science First's recent pounding the table about the importance of drug safety to the FDA. I can only imagine the day, in the not too distant future, when pharmaceutical representatives will be speaking to oncologists about Ruvidar and when asked about side effects the response will blow them away.
John
Comment by
Eoganacht on Apr 27, 2023 5:52pm
As far as "treatment burden" goes (great concept) TLD1433 PDT would have to be considered head and shoulders above (or below?) any competition. A single treatment, minimal side effects and a likely durable reponse between 30%-40%? Given all the advantages it's hard to imagine we don't end up the preferred option.
Comment by
Gooseybear on Apr 28, 2023 10:04am
I'm currently NED with bladder cancer since 2017. Mu Urologist told me that the side effects of Keytruda were much worse than BCG. So if we have something much better than BCG, then we should be able to overtake Keytruda. One is I see is that big pharma has a big advantage politically with FDA.