Well……. It’s the risk reward thing that one of the group members talked about in one of my men’s group meetings. As he said, he was 72 or so, and if the drug had a 10% chance of killing him, but a 50/50 shot at stopping all progression with maybe some improvement? He would probably take it, or at least consider it. My wife and I would have to have a long talk, but I would at least consider it. When the author says it is different than Tysabri, she is talking about the timing of when they discovered the PML fatalities; tolobrutinib showed the risk in trials. The medical industry wants only 0%fatalities because of lawsuits- but I think us older patients would accept a higher risk, because we see the bedbound future with a miserable 5 years at the end of our life, and don’t want to see that. If that really was their reason, we disagree with that mindset of 0 fatalities; that may protect pharma, insurance and large hospitals, but it in particular does not serve the older population. This is just my opinion, and I don’t claim to speak for the entire senior population, but it a bias the whole medical establishment seems to have. We should have the final say in our health; not an agency or doctor.
BTW, a well written piece; I am still suspicious as to whether or not it was the real reason, as I suspect it may be a disguised shot at Sanofi, a well known, foreign company that is famous for vaccines, but if you accept the face value- well thought out defense. But the new regime is pushing the anti vax message as hard as they can; I wonder if this was a more palatable way to punish the company because of their bias.
Very helpful perspective! Looking forward to your next piece on clinical benefits and trial design. Thank you.
Agreed! Thank you so much for the context and clear explanation of the concerns surrounding DILI.
Well……. It’s the risk reward thing that one of the group members talked about in one of my men’s group meetings. As he said, he was 72 or so, and if the drug had a 10% chance of killing him, but a 50/50 shot at stopping all progression with maybe some improvement? He would probably take it, or at least consider it. My wife and I would have to have a long talk, but I would at least consider it. When the author says it is different than Tysabri, she is talking about the timing of when they discovered the PML fatalities; tolobrutinib showed the risk in trials. The medical industry wants only 0%fatalities because of lawsuits- but I think us older patients would accept a higher risk, because we see the bedbound future with a miserable 5 years at the end of our life, and don’t want to see that. If that really was their reason, we disagree with that mindset of 0 fatalities; that may protect pharma, insurance and large hospitals, but it in particular does not serve the older population. This is just my opinion, and I don’t claim to speak for the entire senior population, but it a bias the whole medical establishment seems to have. We should have the final say in our health; not an agency or doctor.
BTW, a well written piece; I am still suspicious as to whether or not it was the real reason, as I suspect it may be a disguised shot at Sanofi, a well known, foreign company that is famous for vaccines, but if you accept the face value- well thought out defense. But the new regime is pushing the anti vax message as hard as they can; I wonder if this was a more palatable way to punish the company because of their bias.