That would be great imo2 times per month dosing of 30-90 mg. So we could expect the treatment to cost 10-12.000 $? (6 months).
That would be great imo2 times per month dosing of 30-90 mg. So we could expect the treatment to cost 10-12.000 $? (6 months).
Yeah that seems like a pretty good guess to me judging by that cost, especially considering the results last years. If constant use was required to maintain they'd probably have to cut margins to make it more feasible, but if you only need to use it for 6-12 months, seems fine.2 times per month dosing of 30-90 mg. So we could expect the treatment to cost 10-12.000 $? (6 months).
What if that isn't needed though? They might not be dosing for 12 months straight, just using the reference period to measure safety/results. Also, isn't there theoretically a ceiling on the benefit that any person could get from this? If you have follicles that are calcified/scarred over then even this isn't brining them back.Phase III will probably last for 12 months. Imagine if the trajectory of improvement continues for a full 12 months. You might be taking this antibody for 2 years.
In instances like this what would prevent vellus hairs grown through derma rolling from benefiting and helping someone get back to a full head?What if that isn't needed though? They might not be dosing for 12 months straight, just using the reference period to measure safety/results. Also, isn't there theoretically a ceiling on the benefit that any person could get from this? If you have follicles that are calcified/scarred over then even this isn't brining them back.
Six months isn't maximum results. At some point it has to level off, but there is no leveling off of the trend in this six month chart. The top two responders appear to be on their way to full density in one year. The rest either need more time or just can't achieve full density. It takes a long time for the follicle to be completely destroyed by fibrosis.What if that isn't needed though? They might not be dosing for 12 months straight, just using the reference period to measure safety/results. Also, isn't there theoretically a ceiling on the benefit that any person could get from this? If you have follicles that are calcified/scarred over then even this isn't brining them back.
No what you said is correct, they will legitimately have to price is more reasonably or they would be charging around that average 100k mark I posted earlier. That's why I always roll my eyes when I see people talking about how much money is in hairloss treatments. When you remove insurance from the equation, most of the profit incentive for the drug companies goes away.Min is 1500 a dose as they can charge it, they could sell it for <1000 providing its produced on a large enough scale and the demand is high and still keep good margins.
Keep in mind, this isn't just being used/trialled for Androgenetic Alopecia. It's also going through trials for Endo, and possibly other indications in the future.
This is far from my realm of knowledge, but I'd imagine id would be advantageous to sell it for Androgenetic Alopecia (not covered by insurance) at a somewhat reduced price. It would be more cost efficient to produce a larger amount consistently, and sell part of it at a reduced price - surely? This is just pure speculation on my part though.
Would like to hear your view on this though, and whether them producing the same mAb for other conditions could make a price reduction for non-insurance covered conditions feasible.
Thanks
Kevin Mann after phase 2 results : Prolactin is a trash garbage hormoneThis surely has to be the new v**** for older men. Nothing kills wood more than prolactin - which sores with age thanks to rising estrogen in relation to T
I am sorry, have to ask this Again because i didn‘t get it:
Does HMI-115 will give the patient a HIGH prolactin-Level or a LOW prolactin-Level?
Would rather go to Dr Diep and do an FUE for that price.2 times per month dosing of 30-90 mg. So we could expect the treatment to cost 10-12.000 $? (6 months).
Surgery and 30% density? Who wouldn't prefer that to natural follicles growing back?Would rather go to Dr Diep and do an FUE for that price.
30% density?Surgery and 30% density? Who wouldn't prefer that to natural follicles growing back?
You think you get more then 30% density on average for hair transplants NW4+? The math doesn't make any sense.He still thinks FUE surgery is sh*t probably. Of course it's not, we're not in the 90's anymore.