A common symptom of aging, Big Pharma sees opportunity:
Dry eye, a common malady of aging, is getting more attention from the medical community and drug makers, who see a growing and largely untapped market for new treatments.For some people, dry eye is more than a small irritation — it can be a debilitating condition that causes painful scratchiness, light sensitivity and stinging in the eyes. But dry-eye patients say they often get perfunctory care from ophthalmologists and optometrists, who simply advise them to blink more and use over-the-counter lubricating drops. Such products may offer temporary relief, but they can be expensive, and many patients complain that they aren’t very effective . . .
. . . Now, specialty pharmaceutical companies are targeting this niche market. Five years ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first prescription drug for dry eye — Restasis, marketed by Allergan Inc. of Irvine, Calif. Consumer advocates have said that aggressive marketing surrounding Restasis has led patients to clamor for a drug that won’t necessarily help them. Doctors say the treatment doesn’t work for everyone and more options are needed.
Related posts:
- The HPV vaccine for the prevention of anal warts
- Prescription drug abuse
- Nuvigil: Careful or calculating?
- Disease mongering chronic constipation
- A disease that needs advertising
- Gadolinium under fire
- Are patients the real "drug pushers?"
{ 5 comments }
I am sick of the over-promotion of Restasis. Topical Cyclosporine, formulated as a BID drop which costs $100 a month is being touted as the solution for everything: chronic blepharitis, decreased aqueous component to tear film production, along with auto-immune disease dry eye and other more serious causes of dry eyes. It has its place, but that place is not as a replacement of occasional moisturizing drops and better eyelid hygeine or treatment of Rosacea.
The shame of it is that some academics I used to respect have joined the Restasis roadshow as their barkers-for-hire.
Restasis is one of the biggest new boondoggles of cost without commensurate aggregate benefit I can think of.
Allergan promotes dry eye as a progressive disease which should be aggressively treated to prevent progression. You would think this condition must blind millions of people every year, rather than being a largely benign nuisance relative to other medical disorders competing for limited dollars. Allergan will tell you to prescribe this drug when patients are using artificial tears more than twice daily, and tell you that you are saving your patient money because Restasis is covered by insurance whereas artificial tears are not. Only the naive would ignore the fact that somebody IS paying for this liquid gold and that that money is passed through in higher patient insurance premiums and decreased reimbursements to providers.
I have a background in economics and will admit that it is difficult for a thinking person to prescribe this drug when you consider you are increasing health care expenditures by $1200 to $2400 per year per patient, depending on whether they use a fresh vial for each administration. This is not to say the drug doesn’t work (although not in every case, and it can burn); it is beneficial to many patients when tear drops alone are insufficient. I say give patients a choice, but don’t simply pass the buck to Medicare Part D or the insurance company. Let patients decide how they want to spend their money, and whether $100 to $200 per month is worth the benefit derived from this drug.
The the poster above. Obviously spoken by someone who doesnt have dry eye.
Dry eye is not just a nuisance, there is a large market out there who are deliberated by dry eye. Dry eye may sound trival, but thats just its name, not the only symptom, and i can assure you its not.
If restasis is the only perscription drug available for dry eye of course most patients will want to try it and hope for the best. Its the paitents choice and if one doctor refused it they will just get it from another doctor.
To repeat for those of you with dry eyes which are not so bad that your vision is not impaired to the point you cannot read this post:
“This is not to say the drug doesn’t work (although not in every case, and it can burn); it is beneficial to many patients when tear drops alone are insufficient. I say give patients a choice, but don’t simply pass the buck to Medicare Part D or the insurance company. Let patients decide how they want to spend their money, and whether $100 to $200 per month is worth the benefit derived from this drug.”
Message: Spend YOUR money as you wish, but nobody has died from dry eye yet to the best of my knowledge, and I am very familiar with this disorder. I am simply arguing that the cost is high in an era of scarce healthcare dollars.
Did you ever wonder why this drug is not available without a prescription? If it were you would have access to it without even having to go to the doctor, but then the buck wouldn’t be passed and patients would have to decide for themselves if it is worth it.
Does anyone have a suggestions for an over-the-counter drop for dry-eye syndrome that REALLY works?
Comments on this entry are closed.