The business of re-purposing existing drugs for new indications
The ScientistDaily has an article by Anna Azvolinsky entitled -- Repurposing Existing Drugs for New Indications.
An entire industry has sprung up around resurrecting failed drugs and recycling existing compounds for novel indications. --
Of interest is a comment:
To the point, “What I like about drug repurposing is that it can solve two issues: improved health-care impact and reduced health-care cost,” says Bloom. “That’s a big driver for us.”
Doesn't this discourage new drug discovery efforts that seek to reduce side-effects and improve drug design (efficacy/reduced side effects)? I don't like the idea of repurposing known side effects. We need more innovation.
Maybe a naive statement, but just saying...where are the cost savings? Legal expenses acquired due to drug side effect litigation is not a way to save.
There are innovative ways to improve drug design from the bottom up.
In the area of multiple sclerosis, one contemplates the story of rituximab (not indicated for MS) and ocrelizumab (pending FDA approval for progressive MS).
For some issues, contemplate
Ocrelizumab and rituximab for multiple sclerosis [MS] .
Merely for humor on repurposing
see the 2014 IPBiz post:
New York Times on self-plagiarism
and the 2011 IPBiz post:
CNET: How to save green tech from crashing