There's a lot more funding going to other incurable diseases that actually kill people, like cancer.
Disagree. The WHO state at least 1.5 billion people worldwide have hearing loss or issues. It's probably a lot higher in reality, but we'll take that at face value.
Also, if someone can't hear someone call out "Watch out!" they could also end up losing their life. Very concerning if they work in a dangerous environment.
Do we know why some people didn't respond as well? Was it because of their advanced age? Did they have long-term hearing loss?
How many people die like this compared to all the people that die of cancer, what do you think?
What are the realistic facts, that you are talking about? Let's take a view from the economic perspective:
When there is a lot of money to be made, there are even more people eager to make it. I'm glad someone else sees it, nearly everyone will experience hearing loss in their life. It's a never ending demand. Elderly and veterans being a hot market for these drugs is a given; though I also see many ENTs using this in clinic after a round of Prednisone even if the hearing loss was not substantial just to further cover their bases.
There is not trillions of dollars of profits to be made on anything in the entire world.
I doubt what you are saying. The veterans' compensation for tinnitus in the US alone is higher then your stated hearing aid market value. Why are you so pessimistic? People need hope, that's the only thing we got with this terrible affliction.
No, sorry. It's not that simple. Without giving too much away (in reference to my other posts) I am a development scientist for a medical company. I can't tell you how many projects with absolutely astronomical market value do not get fully started because "this is a new area, so... rather than invest £50M of our own money in research costs to show proof of principal, why don't we wait until someone else figures out the basics and then build our own treatment off of that research. That means we don't risk our 50M upfront." Investors do not look at people's suffering, they do not look at "what could this be worth in 10 years" - they look at "what's a proven, safe, semi-decent return for my clients' money."
Compared to diseases like cancer, the funding being given to hearing loss research is so tiny it's not even on the map (believe me... I know). Without the huge funding cancer has received, the treatment would be far worse than what's available today. With how many hundreds of billions (possible more?) have been invested in cancer globally, you'd think we'd have a cure, no? No, cancer treatment has remained unchanged for some time now. Does that means it's a dead end and an unattractive investment since there's no cure-all-cancer-pill yet? Of course not.
Non relevant comparison. In the UK alone, 6 million+ people require hearing aids, yet only 2 million are prescribed them through choice. Either social issues (I don't want a hearing aid) or denial. 1 in 6 UK adults have hearing loss. 1 in 10 have a degree of tinnitus. Many people are told their hearing is bad, but not bad enough to benefit from a hearing aid, so aren't even given the option.
I have to say that hearing aids are more expensive than ever but the government should definitely step in to make sure everyone has access to at least a midranger to help people get their life back to some normalcy.
If it gets the FDA approval, I think that insurance would cover it. Just a guess, but just like any other drug.I know this might have been discussed over and over again in the threads, but how much would this kind of treatment possibly cost if it reaches the market? 100 dollars? 1000 dollars? More? I think the small molecules are pretty cheap to make but maybe the injection procedure costs more?
Health care systems have differences. For example, here in Finland we have a public health care system. Eager to see if FX-322 & FX-345 reaches the market, when and how it will be administered in Europe.
It would depend if Finland's health regulator authorises its use, FDA approval has no meaning for Europe. The first hurdle is EU approval, then each country can decide to use it if they wish.
Yes, I guess so. Actually I have not thought about this earlier. Found a link about FDA's office in Europe. Not sure yet what does it mean. Maybe someone wiser could enlighten me about it. Surely many of us here are from Europe, not just US. I would be amazed if EU would not approve the product(s) if proven to be working since it would be first and one of a kind.
We can only speculate. I think that if FX-345 works better in a broader spectrum inside the cochlea covering the most frequencies, we could possibly see way better responses in all patients (theoretically). But time will tell.
The FDA have offices in Europe to audit European companies that have approved products sold in the US.
Dexamethasone injections cost $300 near me and that's for the uninsured. I figure the FX-322 procedure's cost would be similar though the amount of gel being injected is far less (0.2 milliliters I believe is the dose they are still using, Dexamethasone injections are 1.0 ml a pop).I know this might have been discussed over and over again in the threads, but how much would this kind of treatment possibly cost if it reaches the market? 100 dollars? 1000 dollars? More? I think the small molecules are pretty cheap to make but maybe the injection procedure costs more?
I think $300 is cheap considering what the injection could potentially achieve.
Absolutely. If someone told me I could permanently hear true silence again, I'd pay what they ask.
The injection procedure is very simple, routine and quick. In and out of the office in like 45 minutes. They talk about this in their presentations as being a benefit regarding how the practice is done in a lot of ENT departments.I know this might have been discussed over and over again in the threads, but how much would this kind of treatment possibly cost if it reaches the market? 100 dollars? 1000 dollars? More? I think the small molecules are pretty cheap to make but maybe the injection procedure costs more?
It's not about just the procedure cost or how much it costs to make, but also recouping all the R&D etc.I think the small molecules are pretty cheap to make but maybe the injection procedure costs more?
Member
