Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Given the relative size of the markets, it seems interesting but
unlikely that the policies in the UK (NICE) would have limited the success
of the inhaled insulin product. Indeed, the product did not sell well in
the United States were the company was supposed to find the biggest market
and make the biggest profit, despite the fact that, to my knowledge, there
were no absolute restrictions to its prescription in the U.S.
The inhaled insulin story, however, describes the nature of the
decisions that lead to a drug's availability. Even when drugs could
provide important benefit, their availability to patients who may benefit
from these is ultimately a business decision more related to quarterly
profits reports to stakeholders than quality of life assessments from the
authors' "inhaled insulin clinic".
This is why there is limited to no drug development and distribution
in the for-profit drug industry for conditions that affect large
populations who command limited resources (e.g., visceral leishmaniasis).
This seems the key reason explaining why there is no inhaled insulin.
And, certainly, this is not NICE.
NICE policy seems an unlikely reason for the demise of Exubera
Given the relative size of the markets, it seems interesting but
unlikely that the policies in the UK (NICE) would have limited the success
of the inhaled insulin product. Indeed, the product did not sell well in
the United States were the company was supposed to find the biggest market
and make the biggest profit, despite the fact that, to my knowledge, there
were no absolute restrictions to its prescription in the U.S.
The inhaled insulin story, however, describes the nature of the
decisions that lead to a drug's availability. Even when drugs could
provide important benefit, their availability to patients who may benefit
from these is ultimately a business decision more related to quarterly
profits reports to stakeholders than quality of life assessments from the
authors' "inhaled insulin clinic".
This is why there is limited to no drug development and distribution
in the for-profit drug industry for conditions that affect large
populations who command limited resources (e.g., visceral leishmaniasis).
This seems the key reason explaining why there is no inhaled insulin.
And, certainly, this is not NICE.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests