And what I was asking is why do you think there is no chance for other biologics than Remicade (and its derivatives) to work ?
Infliximab is special in that it causes apoptosis of specific activated immune cells (as in activated by the lymphatics through APC) by binding on the cell wall with TNF-alpha. Other immunosupressant biologics don't do that.
I think it has anti-microbial properties. Infliximab is counterindicated for TB, that's why you get that mantoux shot if you start it. But because people with crohn's disease have certain macrophage deficiencies, I think it's possible it's acting like an anti-microbial.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22398081
I think it is coincidence that infliximab works for crohn's disease. Lots of biologics were supposed to work for crohn's disease, based on the fact infliximab did, and they didn't.
Just the fact that most autoimmune diseases have a laundry list of biologics that work for them, they have literally dozens to choose from, and crohn's disease has 1 that works, and it was introduced 15 years ago. That should tell you there is more going on that simply suppressing the inflammation.
Things like vedoluzimab, if you have to use CDAI scores and only manage to put 6% of people into remssion versus controls....you're arguing that a biologic that has a worse remission rate than pentasa works....I don't think it actually works, there's a lot of ways to manipulate data.
I also think it's interesting that infliximab is slightly more effective than it's derivatives. Other immunosupressant biologics, from what I read, often barely manage to surpass placebo, you're arguing about single digit remission rates at that point, infliximab and it's derivatives have much higher remission rates.