itwasquiteawhileago t1_ixwemjx wrote

This is where orphan drugs come in. The government (US, anyway, but I'm assuming others have similar programs) can help provide some funding and allowances for private companies to work on drugs for conditions that have a low enough prevalence as to make it economically non-viable. Should someone that has a one in a million disease be left to suffer because Big Pharma can't turn a profit? This is a primary example of why and how governments should function: to ensure people aren't left behind. And, who knows what other things may spawn off such research, so it's not like everyone else might not benefit, too.


itwasquiteawhileago t1_ixvdc9l wrote

Some of the oncology trials I've been on compare IP to SOC. In many cases SOC is what they call "watchful waiting" (i.e., doing nothing). I'm no oncology expert, but I do work in the clinical trial space and have worked on dozens of various oncology studies over the years and see this regularly. Often times they can cross over from SOC to study drug if their condition worsens within a certain timeframe, but how they make those decisions when developing the protocol is not something to which I am involved.

I know sometimes the best results only really mean maybe a few more months before the inevitable. Those trials are rough because people just want to live the rest of their lives as comfortable as possible, so being in a clinical trial that, best case, may extend their life a few months, is not always appealing. But without these trials, we'll never get anywhere in the long run.