- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Goldman Sachs: One shot cures are bad for business
Posted on 4/13/18 at 1:51 am
Posted on 4/13/18 at 1:51 am
quote:
One-shot cures for diseases are not great for business—more specifically, they’re bad for longterm profits—Goldman Sachs analysts noted in an April 10 report for biotech clients, first reported by CNBC.
quote:
The potential to deliver “one shot cures” is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically engineered cell therapy, and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies... While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.
quote:
For a real-world example, they pointed to Gilead Sciences, which markets treatments for hepatitis C that have cure rates exceeding 90 percent. In 2015, the company’s hepatitis C treatment sales peaked at $12.5 billion. But as more people were cured and there were fewer infected individuals to spread the disease, sales began to languish. Goldman Sachs analysts estimate that the treatments will bring in less than $4 billion this year.
“[Gilead]’s rapid rise and fall of its hepatitis C franchise highlights one of the dynamics of an effective drug that permanently cures a disease, resulting in a gradual exhaustion of the prevalent pool of patients,” the analysts wrote. The report noted that diseases such as common cancers—where the “incident pool remains stable”—are less risky for business.
LINK
Posted on 4/13/18 at 2:14 am to TJGator1215
So completely curing a disease hurts sales for repeated treatments of said disease?
Alert the press!
Alert the press!
Posted on 4/13/18 at 2:16 am to TJGator1215
This isn’t new. The unfortunate truth is pharmaceutical companies and hospitals will make more treating a disease instead of curing it.
For God’s sake, mankind flew to the fricking moon. No reason cures for cancer can’t be found.
For God’s sake, mankind flew to the fricking moon. No reason cures for cancer can’t be found.
This post was edited on 4/13/18 at 2:19 am
Posted on 4/13/18 at 5:18 am to JetsetNuggs
I think the point is that no one will invest billions in therapies that will yield very little revenue.
Posted on 4/13/18 at 5:28 am to TJGator1215
So how does this report make money for Goldman Sachs?
Posted on 4/13/18 at 5:36 am to gthog61
quote:
So how does this report make money for Goldman Sachs?
Teaser rate. Loss leader. They will tell you how to monetize the investment in these technologies, and how much investment the technology can support, for a very reasonable fee.
Popular
Back to top
3






