Bayer Prolactin Receptor Antibody For Male And Female Pattern Hair Loss

[ppma]

Right now HMI 115 is just a monoclonal antibody, with all its drawbacks. However, if it sees the market, it is not going to be in such a form, but more likely as a mRNA serum. mRNA has experienced a boost in development "thanks" to Covid-19, and is viable to produce not only antigenic proteins but also it should be able to produce complex antibodies.

This would be a logical step for commercialization, as reducing costs and increasing the market are two variables that are not related linearly. Meaning, at a cost of 20k$ (as estimated by pegasus2), decreasing it to 5k$ (1/4), the demand would not increase by 300%, but maybe to 3000%. Yet it's all logical speculation and the trials in the US and Australia should prove positive results before thinking about putting it into the market.

 

[Hope111]

but would it be a treatment that would have to be repeated every so often? for example 4 years?

 

[pegasus2]

Right now HMI 115 is just a monoclonal antibody, with all its drawbacks. However, if it sees the market, it is not going to be in such a form, but more likely as a mRNA serum. mRNA has experienced a boost in development "thanks" to Covid-19, and is viable to produce not only antigenic proteins but also it should be able to produce complex antibodies.

This would be a logical step for commercialization, as reducing costs and increasing the market are two variables that are not related linearly. Meaning, at a cost of 20k$ (as estimated by pegasus2), decreasing it to 5k$ (1/4), the demand would not increase by 300%, but maybe to 3000%. Yet it's all logical speculation and the trials in the US and Australia should prove positive results before thinking about putting it into the market.

This is fantasy. They aren't wasting time trialing an antibody to start over with an mRNA drug. This company doesn't even work with mRNA. They don't have the expertise to develop it. They bought the rights to the antibody to commercialize it. There's zero chance they do what you're suggesting. Another company might do it long down the road. Also, 20k is not my estimate. I would estimate between 20-50k. 20k would be very cheap for a mAb.

 

[coolio]

Simple capitalism says it will be sold as cheaply as possible. A monoclonal-based hair fix is not in any danger of crossing the tipping point where they start to lose money by lowering the price farther.

If it's possible to do it for $20k, then it will come down to $20k within a few years.

 

[froggy7]

Simple capitalism says it will be sold as cheaply as possible. A monoclonal-based hair fix is not in any danger of crossing the tipping point where they start to lose money by lowering the price farther.

If it's possible to do it for $20k, then it will come down to $20k within a few years.

the price is a bald man's dream, the reality will be different - beauty is for the rich, only

 

[pegasus2]

Simple capitalism says it will be sold as cheaply as possible. A monoclonal-based hair fix is not in any danger of crossing the tipping point where they start to lose money by lowering the price farther.

If it's possible to do it for $20k, then it will come down to $20k within a few years.

It was possible to sell propecia for $1/mo, but it was a couple hundred until generics came out.

 

[ppma]

This is fantasy. They aren't wasting time trialing an antibody to start over with an mRNA drug. This company doesn't even work with mRNA. They don't have the expertise to develop it. They bought the rights to the antibody to commercialize it. There's zero chance they do what you're suggesting. Another company might do it long down the road. Also, 20k is not my estimate. I would estimate between 20-50k. 20k would be very cheap for a mAb.

What is already developed is the antibody. There is no point in trying to create the mRNA version of it before knowing if it even works; we all agree on this. But if the running trials reveal that the antibody actually works, stocks go up, and then there would funding for further developments. There is no need for the company to have experience in the technology as companies partner all the time to exploit their expertise.

What I do not know, is wether the license is only about commercialization or they can also make developments upon the antibody itself. If it is just commercialization and exploitation in the current form, then I agree that it is all just fantasy.

 

[FilthyFrancis]

This would be a logical step for commercialization (...) it's all logical speculation and the trials in the US and Australia should prove positive results

Thanks for the good laugh buddy.

 

[pegasus2]

What is already developed is the antibody. There is no point in trying to create the mRNA version of it before knowing if it even works; we all agree on this. But if the running trials reveal that the antibody actually works, stocks go up, and then there would funding for further developments. There is no need for the company to have experience in the technology as companies partner all the time to exploit their expertise.

What I do not know, is wether the license is only about commercialization or they can also make developments upon the antibody itself. If it is just commercialization and exploitation in the current form, then I agree that it is all just fantasy.

Can you cite any precedent for this happening? How insane would you have to be to have a phase 2 trial showing your drug works. You're two years away from getting it on the market and generating BILLIONS in revenue. Instead you decide to start over so that you can have an mRNA drug that does the same thing on the market in 10 years. Why would an mRNA treatment even be any cheaper? If it cures hair loss and they can charge $50k for it they will regardless of what it costs them to manufacture it. They can produce monoclonal antibodies at scale for a few hundred dollars. They charge 80k+ on average because they can, not because they have to.

 

[coolio]

It was possible to sell propecia for $1/mo, but it was a couple hundred until generics came out.

Propecia also did not ever cost $50k.

Why not?


If HMI-115 (or anything else) actually works, then they can charge huge numbers initially. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the price a few years later after things settle down. They will keep making more money as the price drops until it's down to a few thousand bucks (inflation adjusted).

 

[pegasus2]

Propecia also did not ever cost $50k.

Why not?


If HMI-115 (or anything else) actually works, then they can charge huge numbers initially. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the price a few years later after things settle down. They will keep making more money as the price drops until it's down to a few thousand bucks (inflation adjusted).

Who would pay $50 for something that might make them regrow 10 hairs?

I get what you're saying, but I don't think the price ever comes down that low. I've said it before, but people don't seem to grasp that the insurers would balk at paying 80k for the endo drug if they are selling it to baldies for a few thousand. They will not give up their cash cow from the insurers to make baldies happy. I don't think anyone wants to wait a few years for the price to come down anyway. If you're on this forum you're probably buying it the minute it's available if you can pay.

 

[Dimitri001]

The scenario where HMI turns out a cure, but you still can't get it because it's beyond your means is quite possible. In fact there's no doubt it's gonna cost a lot, the part that's in doubt is whether it turns out to work.

The phase 1 in Australia is as good as a phase 2. It's 6 months long. That's long enough to confirm that it works. Should have results first quarter next year

If it works spectacularly in everyone phase 1 will confirm it, but if the results are mixed and some people are non responders, the small sample size of a phase 1 may leave us wondering how many people it works on and how well.

 

[coolio]

I'm not arguing that HMI will get down to a few thousand bucks. I'm just arguing that the marketing math favors cheapening it, and it will probably never get so cheap that this isn't the case. It may start at $50k and end up stalled at $25k or something.

As for the effect of the endo drug - since when does the medical industry give a crap about consistency in pricing? I could absolutely see them offering a cosmetic baldness treatment for $25k, and simultaneously charging insurers $50k for a re-branded version of the same thing. The insurers don't need to be happy about it for it to happen.

 

[froggy7]

beauty, health and youth is and will always be only for rich and ultra rich, it will never change

 

[Zon Ama]

beauty, health and youth is and will always be only for rich and ultra rich, it will never change

And again: What cosmetical procedure costs more than 10k$?

Some examples:
Invisalign: 3-7k$
Single dental implant: 1-2k$ (this is even covered by insurance to some degree)
Jawline surgery: 10k$
Breast implant: 5-7k$

This is not rich and not ultra rich

 

[pegasus2]

And again: What cosmetical procedure costs more than 10k$?

A hair transplant

 

[froggy7]

And again: What cosmetical procedure costs more than 10k$?

Some examples:
Invisalign: 3-7k$
Single dental implant: 1-2k$ (this is even covered by insurance to some degree)
Jawline surgery: 10k$
Breast implant: 5-7k$

This is not rich and not ultra rich

total face makover in korea - 50k$

 

[ppma]

If producing at large scale costs lie in the range of some hundred $ or even less, then I understand that the estimate of $50k is is not based on the production costs, which is what I was thinking. There is no point in investing in another technology then.

Then why the estimate of $20k? If it's based on numbers or studies I am really interested. 90% baldies in the forum might be willing to pay that much, but outside most balding men do not give a cr*p about their condition. At least not if it involves such quantities.

Surgical procedures usually involves other factors: insurances, a large team involved (nurses, anaesthetists, other technicians), facilities, liability insurances, but also the prestige and name of the surgeon. This last thing is what creates scarcity and raises the price, and applies to hair transplants as well. Also, we are not dealing with a drug saving anyone of dying from cancer like other mAb treatments.

Here we are talking about a product that can be administered with almost no specialized skill requirements, requiring quite cheap equipment, and with no need for special facilities. Profits in this scenario are maximized not by charging huge prices, but finding the price that multiplied by the consumers willing to pay it is the highest. Doubtfully >$10k

 

[pegasus2]

Not in Turkey or many other places in the world. And quality is even better in some of those cheaper places than the average western transplant clinic.


A hair tranpslant is more democratic than ever.

Yes, but the point is it's a lot more than that in the US, which is a more appropriate comparison for determining market pricing of a hair loss treatment. Turkey won't be manufacturing generic HMI-115 and selling it to Americans and Europeans.

 

[Zon Ama]

Yes, but the point is it's a lot more than that in the US, which is a more appropriate comparison for determining market pricing of a hair loss treatment. Turkey won't be manufacturing generic HMI-115 and selling it to Americans and Europeans.

Haha, I am trying to spread some positivity in this thread. Maybe youre right.
I am living in a bigger german city and I saw at least 15 people who had a hair transplant and I know one guy who had already 2 in Turkey
Even if it will not reach 100% density, no one has to be bald nowadays. Its a choice.

I am losing ground fast as f***, but at least we have options. Keep your head up, guys. In the end of the day its just hair, even if its annoying!