Shhh. Big Pharma scientists hard at work. On what, you ask? Why, on Novo's new "baby" - a drug designed to treat type 2 diabetes. Liraglutide, a hormone analogue, is supposed to improve blood sugar control. It's also supposed to get you that coveted magic bullet (a la Byetta): weight loss. Ooh, baby. Now that's medication!

Novo Nordisk has been working on Liraglutide for a while now. Here's the latest: Novo announced Monday that two Phase III studies were successful in demonstrating the aforementioned blood sugar control and weight reduction. Novo is riding high on the news: its shares rose six percent on the announcement. According to a pharmaceutical industry analyst quoted by Reuters, the shares surged so healthily because the positive news was expected.

The powers-that-be at the drug giant say they hope Liraglutide can be submitted for regulatory approval by mid-2008. They hope it will become another blockbuster, with estimated annual sales topping one billion. Stay tuned.

The CafePharma message boards are for pharmaceutical sales professionals and those interested in the pharmaceutical industry. A former Lilly sales rep started a thread about Eli Lilly and the lies they've told over the years. Pro Lilly responses flooded in, as did the anti-Lilly responses. Yesterday, however, two comments seemed to hit the message board with a vengeance.

Comments #23 and #24 epitomize the anatomy of a good old fashioned debate. Comment #23 is an Eli Lilly sales rep who claims to have helped with the successful launch of rDNA insulin, and the conversion of patients on pig and cow insulin to Humulin. He remarked from the perspective of a salesman that it was a successful venture resulting in unilateral domination. In response to his yesteryear achievement - commenter #24 raised some wonderful counter-points for modern day consideration. The following paragraph summarizes the results 25 years after the market saturation of Humulin and genetically modified human insulin.

The adverse events include: (1) Complications of diabetes are increasing. (2) Dead-in-bed syndrome is up over 300%. (3) Traffic accidents caused by people using rDNA insulins are increasing (especially in Type 2). (4) rDNA insulins are producing immunogenic responses in the same manner and numbers in the diabetic population as did pig and cow insulins. (5) No long-term studies have ever been conducted to define the dangers of the synthetic insulin hormones relative to cancer and other diseases.

Of course my favorite point is the fact that recent studies have shown that the culprit in many Type 1 diabetics may actually be the human insulin antibody produced by the diabetic. This may be self-serving beyond Type 1 diabetics needing insulin - it's giving Type 2s the very same problem.

It hasn't gone unnoticed - the cost of healthcare is rising, diabetes diagnoses are rising, the pharmaceutical industry has dramatically increased its investment in research and development -- but that has not translated into more new treatments.

Between 1993 and 2004, funding for new drug applications submitted to the FDA increased almost a 150%. However, the number of new drug applications increased only 38%. Of those applications, only 7% were for innovative drugs with new ingredients. The Government Accountability Office (yes there is such a thing) says the reason for unimpressive returns on medical research funding dollars is due to the difficulty of developing new treatments, combined with marketplace pressure to produce blockbuster new drugs.

The phenomenon known as "me too" drugs (where companies produce drugs similar to drugs already on the market) has also become much more common. These drugs offer little in the way of innovation. However, despite the economic challenges of bringing new and innovative drugs to market, the pace of scientific discovery has increased substantially in the past 10 years - 56 diabetes drugs in development, alone. As the cost of discovering new medicines rises, it becomes more difficult for drug companies to recover these costs. It seems the research dollars are plentiful but ideas for new drugs can't compete with all the profit-decaying hurdles along the way. It's not a problem of interest until it's your own. I wouldn't wish diabetes on anybody-- even those who care more about the profit margin versus the quality of life of the person taking the pill.