Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

fordprefect294 t1_j0xw7ok wrote

Yay, another thing for Americans to be unequivocally unable to afford

171

floridawhiteguy t1_j0zvzu8 wrote

Maybe not. I take a synthetic hormone daily which 100's of millions of people worldwide depend on. It has been on the market for more than 30 years.

And it costs only $10 cash out-of-pocket (no insurance) for a 90 day supply - cheaper than one lunch at a fast-food restaurant.

Market competition can produce remarkable results.

6

PigglyWigglyDeluxe t1_j0zgbfg wrote

I wonder if more options will bring prices down. One can only hope

5

fordprefect294 t1_j0zj79p wrote

Never underestimate the ability of big pharma to profit from our deaths

3

[deleted] t1_j0zctpe wrote

[removed]

−16

TummyDrums t1_j0zf5gf wrote

Too bad Type 1 diabetics don't produce insulin regardless of diet and fitness level.

16

The-Protomolecule t1_j0yur46 wrote

So, we should stop developing drugs?

−36

fistcomefirstserve t1_j0yuyro wrote

Do you actually think that the was the point of the statement?

You’re looking for an argument. In a weird place. Why?

32

fordprefect294 t1_j0yv3k7 wrote

No, it's a criticism of our For Profit Healthcare System. Specifically, how fantastically expensive insulin already is

15

daneelthesane t1_j0z34l2 wrote

You have a lot of nerve asking stupid questions after what you did on Eros.

9

TummyDrums t1_j0zfacl wrote

Why would you jump to this conclusion rather than "lets try and make them cheaper"?

3

Sybertron t1_j0y88bk wrote

While we argue about this we are quickly bringing Biologics (synthetic antibodies) to market that will effectively greatly reduce or eliminate diabetic complications.

The issue is going to be that big pharma will want thousands of dollars a shot (with a shot lasting a few months), leading to insurances not wanting to cover it.

123

surnik22 t1_j0yb1og wrote

Insurance will cover it if it is cheaper than expected long term costs of not having the shot. Paying $10k a year (after you pay the first $5k deductible of course) is lot cheaper than paying for long hospital stays, limb amputations, and other infection related issues.

I’m sure the companies making the shot will set the price to just below the calculated long term costs of not getting the shot.

That’s the “joy” of privatized medicine. Pharma companies set high prices, to suck as much money from insurance as they can. Hospitals set high prices to suck as much money from insurance (and patients) as they can. Then the insurance companies set prices to suck as much money from people as they can.

Executives everywhere get rich and the public all gets poorer and gets poor access to healthcare that costs too much.

85

DrunksInSpace t1_j0z1pvg wrote

Insurance companies may cover it if it is cheaper than expected long term costs of not having a shot.

I can’t tell you how many teach patients get one suction set up per month to clear their trachs and keep getting hospitalized with recurrent tracheitis and respiratory tract infections (upper and/or lower). Suctioning is a routine procedure that is done aseptically (sterile gloves and equipment) multiple times a day in a clinical setting, with all new equipment each time.

Assuming companies are smart with their money is not always a safe bet.

18

absentmindedjwc t1_j12zfkl wrote

The thing OP doesn't understand here - insurance companies may not want to cover it depending on how long term of a cost it is. If there's a chance that they're the ones holding the bag at the end, then they'll happily cover it.... but if the complications of it won't rear its head until 20 years later... they'll gamble that someone else will be left holding the bag when it comes time to pay up.

1

TummyDrums t1_j0zfxnk wrote

The trouble is, if your doctor says you need the shot every 3 months, the insurance company will only cover it once every 6 months, and when you get an exception written up by your doctor they'll still deny the request. When a generic comes out that isn't as effective, they'll force you to switch, again against your doctor's orders.

People focus on how expensive healthcare in this country is because of this broken system, but to me the crazier thing is how much your insurance company can dictate how your doctor treats you.

18

General_Elephant t1_j0z9frx wrote

Metformin is a really low cost drug right now, so the insurance companies will have "step therapy" meaning you need to fail with the "frontline therapy" to qualify for possible coverage of more expensive alternates.

8

Iceree t1_j0zuzpc wrote

This is true. Took metformin, couldn't tolerate some bad side effects, now have a much more effective drug to take AND I get to take it much less frequently then metformin.

5

-The_Blazer- t1_j0yuiqz wrote

Well, for those of us who live under the socialist iron fist of universal healthcare this is great news at least.

13

jayhasbigvballs t1_j0xtzii wrote

The next step will be to make this, or something similar, glucose-sensitive. Unfortunately a molecule that will always be around/active in the blood mimicking insulin isn’t really that useful, as it would cause a crazy amount of hypoglycaemia. Hence why we need something that will only become active/more active in the presence of glucose.

36

[deleted] t1_j0y5e16 wrote

Short half life and dose dependent just like insulin you mean?

15

jayhasbigvballs t1_j0yqxs2 wrote

No because insulin is about timing. You take insulin in response to a meal. If you just pop a pill in the morning, there’s nothing to tell the mimetic to begin or stop acting.

4

elijah112358 t1_j0yttnk wrote

many people are also able to control T2DM with only basal insulin (i.e. long acting insulin that isn’t bolused at meals)

5

jayhasbigvballs t1_j0zfb7f wrote

Sure. But type two diabetes is progressive and almost all those patients will eventually fail because of the nature of their disease. What will make this drug useful is if it was the only thing required, aka a short acting insulin mimetic, which will actually regulate blood sugar in an impressive way. Most type 2s on long acting are also on other oral antidiabetic medications because long acting just doesn’t really lower blood sugar a whole bunch.

Source: I’m a type 1 diabetic, did my PhD in metabolic disease, and worked in research for a large pharmaceutical company in their diabetes portfolio.

6

TummyDrums t1_j0zgs5x wrote

bolus insulin (short acting) is about timing, but basal insulin (long acting) is a once a day thing (twice in some cases), where you always have some insulin circulating. All type 1's need this, and type 2's use it in some cases too.

2

jayhasbigvballs t1_j0zihvh wrote

Not all type 1s need long-acting insulin. For example, those on pumps. Because the short acting is delivered throughout the day and night. Theoretically this drug could be designed to fulfill both roles, if they made it glucose sensitive.

1

TummyDrums t1_j0zxetd wrote

While you're technically correct on the pump, the pump itself is manipulating the insulin delivery to mimic long acting insulin so that's only a semantic difference. Whether it's a constant drip from a pump or a constant release from injected basal insulin, all type 1s need a constant delivery of insulin.

2

King_Tamino t1_j0y8y5w wrote

A pill would be already an improvement or?

2

[deleted] t1_j0yfmgz wrote

Yes, it is. If you use long acting insulin you run the risk of hypoglycemia if you don’t eat enough. If you take too much fast acting insulin you could die. You’re supposed to know how much you need or eat according to how much you injected. Regardless, it is an improvement. What the comment above mine says just sounds impossible.

10

The-Brit t1_j0xgblg wrote

Available in 15 years, if ever.

23

[deleted] t1_j0xhufh wrote

[deleted]

22

The-Brit t1_j0xirro wrote

Simple answer - as a diabetic I am sick of these "fantastic development" articles. Raised hopes slowly dwindling int dust.

36

Phoenix5869 t1_j0yfmg9 wrote

yep theyve been promising cures for all sorts of diseases for the past 15 years

4

_bad t1_j0yhowz wrote

darn tootin' brother, that's why I only take the finest supplements from Alex Jones instead of going to those fake leftist medical doctors and their big pharma overlords

−9

Wobbling t1_j0z4s6q wrote

As a diabetic, Multiple Sclerosis, liver and kidney disease patient (with just a dash of eczema for spice) I'm amazed at the continuing development and release of new tested and safe therapies.

Trulicity and Ocrevus immediately spring to mind.

2

anormalgeek t1_j0ypg3n wrote

Diabetics hear about such advancements ALL OF THE TIME. It's a newar constant barrage of new super effective treatments or cures that are always "5-10 years away".

It is fair to be skeptical.

9

coverslide t1_j0yz8yr wrote

This should make insulin cheaper right?

  • Anakin smirk
7

CarbonGod t1_j0z0aln wrote

twiddles thumbs for another 30 years

2

sunseven3 t1_j0yea1h wrote

Not to mention insane profits for whomever has cooked up this 'miracle'.

1

teabiscuit35 t1_j0z1chd wrote

So what will eventual market prices be? And how long will a shot last? What of insurance cover? All these seem nice on paper till we come to real life scenarios and we realize big pharma isnt our friend

1

ph30nix01 t1_j0z93ou wrote

I always wondered why we don't use the gut biome with bio engineered bacteria to release insulin and other needed drugs

0

BruntLIVEz t1_j0ycmp6 wrote

I really hope this is used for the general public and not just the well connected.

−6

Phighters t1_j0yn6ud wrote

All approved drugs are available to the public 😂

8

BruntLIVEz t1_j0yr76p wrote

When 10 years from now? Well connected first then regular people. I don’t put that much faith in humanity, especially after a medical breakthrough. $$$$$

−5

Phighters t1_j0ysjt6 wrote

Holy shit man, that's not how any of it works. If its approved, its approved, and anyone has access to it provided they are medically eligible. It will cost money though.

2

BruntLIVEz t1_j0zh5ak wrote

Have you met humans? Just saying, it’s gonna be some regular Joe/Joanna denied the treatment. THEN after the lawsuit it will be available. I’ve worked in the industry and this is how it really goes. Gattaca-light type BS

−2

Phighters t1_j0zndxl wrote

You do not work in the industry, this is clear. The entire concept you're suggesting is fucking ridiculous, to be honest. It's simply, flatly, untrue. If you medically qualify and have the means to pay via insurance or rich daddy, you get it. Period.

​

Take the dystopian bullshit elsewhere.

3

BruntLIVEz t1_j0zxveo wrote

Ok whatever let’s see who gets it

0

Phighters t1_j1061su wrote

In the event that this is approved years from now, I'll save you the suspense: Everyone who medically qualifies and has the means to pay.

1

di_ib t1_j0z46kd wrote

Develop a new flu virus that leaves everyone with diabetes. Super contagious asf. Then they will be forced to work on this and release it to the masses for free as a vaccine.

−6

sanjsrik t1_j0xqb82 wrote

Well, only if they can overcharge by 5million percent every year. And only if they can keep it to suppress any cures. More money in maintenance.

−8

asenz t1_j0yss3n wrote

Isn't cinnamon extract basically doing this (for mild diabetes sufferers)?

−11

TheWildTofuHunter t1_j0z72mx wrote

“Research findings have been mixed, and the American Diabetes Association dismisses cinnamon’s use in diabetes treatment.” It also can have negative interactions with other medications and supplements.

3

[deleted] t1_j0xkht1 wrote

[deleted]

−12

ISUJinX t1_j0xl8qr wrote

I see you're not familiar with Type1 diabetes.

19

anonprogtada t1_j0yblbs wrote

Lets see:

  • Option 1: Doctors provide plans for patients to reduce their carbohydrate intake, pushing their diabetes into remission; or
  • Option 2: Doctors listen to pharma reps that "this is the next big thing", they ceate another billion or 2x or 3x Billion pill and patients continue treating diabetes as a progressive disease that slowly takes toes, feet, eyes and legs.

What'll it be Jimmy? Door number 1 or door number 2?

−15

amber440 t1_j0ycoq6 wrote

You realize Type 1 is genetic and isn’t created by dietary habits?

16

anonprogtada t1_j0ydufd wrote

95% pf suffers are T2. Diabetes used to be 1% of the population and almost exclusively T1.

−9

anormalgeek t1_j0ypshf wrote

No, that is flat out untrue. Type 2 has always been more common. Especially when you consider that type 1 was a quick death sentence up until a hundred years ago. And around 20% of type 2 patients develop it without obesity or diet as a contributing factor. At least in the US. That ratio is higher in countries with less obesity. For example just getting old is a major contributor too, as well as just genetic predisposition.

7

anonprogtada t1_j0yrw5n wrote

In the 70s total diabetes as a measure of population was 1%. Its now over 10% and can you guess what type has been the main "lifestyle" disease?

Type 1 was never a death sentence. The original "treatment" was ... low/no carb in the 1800s.

But that's besides the point, Diabetics are never even told that they can restore insulin sensitivity and/or put the disease into remission. Its just more pills and injections.

−4

elijah112358 t1_j0yu7k6 wrote

it’s impressive how inaccurate you’re able to be in so few comments!

There’s a reason we regularly do pre-diabetes screening and education… and why we focus so much on lifestyle changes during the reversible period of T2DM.

5

anonprogtada t1_j0yuqfx wrote

Reversible period? If pancreatic function is still present, its a question of restoring insulin sensitivity. Which is still best achieved wth ... low carbohydrate diets. Turns out the thing which overloaded the system aka glucose is the same thing we can remove from the diet to restore it.

1

elijah112358 t1_j0ywe8d wrote

No one’s arguing against low carb diets being effective in managing T2DM. However, your assessment that eliminating sugar from a diet will reverse T2DM is only accurate in early stages of the disease.

At some point, insulin insensitivity cannot be reversed with lifestyle changes alone, and is certainly not “best achieved” with such changes.

6

anormalgeek t1_j0yvea5 wrote

Again, flat out untrue. Until the isolation of insulin by Banting and Best, the best you could do was extend life. Cutting carbs alone would give you a few months or a couple of years if your "honeymoon period" lasted longer. Because even fat/protein intake affects blood glucose (to a lesser extent than carbs), many people also followed the "starvation diet", which extended life longer by consuming the absolute bare minimum of calories. It always resulted in death though.

Yes, as I clearly implied, type 2 prevalence has increased a lot due to lifestyle but it has always been more prevalent than type 1. Another major contributing factor is age and people are living longer.

2

anonprogtada t1_j102adx wrote

Seriously? Here's some FaCts:

Type 2 diabetes accounts for approximately 90% to 95% of all diagnosed cases of diabetes; type 1 diabetes accounts for approximately 5-10%

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/quick-facts.html

And type 2 diabetes can be put into remission at any stage of the disease, or do you think there is only one path: ever increasing insulin shots, amputation and death?

0

anormalgeek t1_j10kfhj wrote

Again, none of that in any way contradicts what I said earlier.

To quote you directly:

>Diabetes used to be...almost exclusively T1.

I'm talking about that part. Type 2 has ALWAYS been the more prevalent type. Always.

And no, it absolutely cannot be put into remission for all patients. There are some people with completely healthy diets, weights, and exercise regimens that still develop the disease. They are absolutely the minority. I am not disputing that. But you're flat out wrong to claim that doesn't happen. Or that type 1 used to be more prevalent than type 2. Or that people could survive long term with type 1 with lifestyle changes alone before insulin was available. Those are all 100% incorrect statements that you've made.

0

Phighters t1_j0yn9vf wrote

Yeah, and this is the same fantasy island where you think that those affected will suddenly and consistently change their dietary habits.

1