GAO re­port tracks the growth of an $89B drug R&D sec­tor as bio­phar­ma sales soared

Just how much does phar­ma re­al­ly pay for drug re­search and de­vel­op­ment, how does that ac­tu­al­ly stack up as a per­cent­age of sales and who cov­ers the bill for ba­sic drug re­search?

The US Gov­ern­ment Ac­count­abil­i­ty Of­fice (GAO) took that task on and came up with some in­trigu­ing num­bers that say a lot about the size of the R&D in­dus­try and some key un­der­ly­ing trends be­hind the spend. One fig­ure demon­strat­ing how per­son­al health­care spend­ing grew from 7% in the ’90s to 12%, al­most dou­bling in the process, al­so un­der­scores why drug pric­ing has be­come a hot po­lit­i­cal is­sue that shows no sign of wan­ing.

While check­ing a va­ri­ety of sources, the GAO re­searchers ze­roed in heav­i­ly on the num­ber crunch­ing done by the Na­tion­al Sci­ence Foun­da­tion on the R&D spend­ing re­port­ed by US phar­ma com­pa­nies and the US-based R&D done by over­seas com­pa­nies. Be­tween 2008 and 2014, when it had a full set of num­bers to look at, the hard dol­lars spent jumped from $82 bil­lion to $89 bil­lion, a hike of 8.5%.

This all was oc­cur­ring while com­bined phar­ma and biotech sales soared from $534 bil­lion in 2006 to $775 bil­lion in 2016 — a 45% in­crease. But it’s al­so im­por­tant to note that the biotech R&D num­bers col­lect­ed by the GAO gy­rat­ed rad­i­cal­ly from one year to the next, un­der­scor­ing just how hard it is to track the spend by a wide range of small­er, of­ten pri­vate, com­pa­nies.

So how does the R&D spend re­late to ad­ver­tis­ing and pro­mo­tion, a sub­ject that phar­ma crit­ics in par­tic­u­lar like to use to vex ex­ecs with? The re­port cites an es­ti­mate rang­ing from 11.5% to 14.2% for an av­er­age of 13% as the per­cent­age of sales re­served for R&D cost. Those fig­ures eas­i­ly dwarf the 7.6% spent on ad­ver­tis­ing tracked by Quin­tiles­IMS (now IQVIA), though the GAO notes that there are a va­ri­ety of fig­ures be­ing bat­ted around there.

There’s no ques­tion, says the GAO, that the NIH cov­ers the bulk of the tab for ba­sic re­search, with phar­ma clear­ly more in­ter­est­ed in de­vel­op­ment than pre­clin­i­cal work.

Bio­med­ical re­search took a def­i­nite hit in the pe­ri­od that the GAO cov­ered, with NIH fund­ing drop­ping 3.8%. The $26 bil­lion in re­al dol­lars spent in 2014 was a steep drop from the $32 bil­lion shelled out in 2010, un­der­scor­ing the rel­a­tive pauci­ty of fed­er­al cash that has stirred wide­spread calls to do bet­ter.

The NIH al­lo­cat­ed $13.6 bil­lion for ba­sic re­search in 2014, more than twice the $6.3 bil­lion re­port­ed by phar­ma com­pa­nies.

And as we’ve been track­ing, out­sourc­ing con­tin­ues to gain a grow­ing share of the R&D dol­lar. The gov­ern­ment re­port notes that while 25% of re­search was farmed out by phar­ma in 2008, that fig­ure grew to 35% in 2014.

A New Fron­tier: The In­ner Ear

What happens when a successful biotech venture capitalist is unexpectedly diagnosed with a chronic, life-disrupting vertigo disorder? Innovation in neurotology.

That venture capitalist was Jay Lichter, Ph.D., and after learning there was no FDA-approved drug treatment for his condition, Ménière’s disease, he decided to create a company to bring drug development to neurotology. Otonomy was founded in 2008 and is dedicated to finding new drug treatments for the hugely underserved community living with balance and hearing disorders. Helping patients like Jay has been the driving force behind Otonomy, a company heading into a transformative 2020 with three clinical trial readouts: Phase 3 in Ménière’s disease, Phase 2 in tinnitus, and Phase 1/2 in hearing loss. These catalysts, together with others in the field, highlight the emerging opportunity in neurotology.
Otonomy is leading the way in neurotology
Neurotology, or the treatment of inner ear neurological disorders, is a large and untapped market for drug developers: one in eight individuals in the U.S. have moderate-to-severe hearing loss, tinnitus or vertigo disorders such as Ménière’s disease.1 With no FDA-approved drug treatments available for these conditions, the burden on patients—including social anxiety, lower quality of life, reduced work productivity, and higher rates of depression—can be significant.2, 3, 4

Joe Jimenez, Getty

Ex-No­var­tis CEO Joe Jimenez is tak­ing an­oth­er crack at open­ing a new chap­ter in his ca­reer — and that in­cludes a new board seat and a $250M start­up

Joe Jimenez is back.

The ex-CEO of Novartis has taken a board seat on Century Therapeutics, the Versant and Bayer-backed startup focused on coming up with a brand new twist on cell therapies for cancer — a field where Jimenez made his mark backing the first personalized CAR-T approved for use.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Credit: Shutterstock

Can we make the an­tibi­ot­ic mar­ket great again?

The standard for-profit model in drug development is straightforward. Spend millions, even billions, to develop a medicine from scratch. The return on investment (and ideally a tidy profit) comes via volume and/or price, depending on the disease. But the string of big pharma exits and slew of biotech bankruptcies indicate that the model is sorely flawed when it comes to antibiotics.

The industry players contributing to the arsenal of antimicrobials are fast dwindling, and the pipeline for new antibiotics is embarrassingly sparse, the WHO has warned. Drugmakers are enticed by greener pastures, compared to the long, arduous and expensive path to antibiotic approval that offers little financial gain as treatments are typically priced cheaply, and often lose potency over time as microbes grow resistant to them.

The FTC and New York state ac­cuse Mar­tin Shkre­li of run­ning a drug mo­nop­oly. They plan to squash it — and per­ma­nent­ly ex­ile him

Pharma bro Martin Shkreli was jailed, publicly pilloried and forced to confront some lawmakers in Washington riled by his move to take an old generic and move the price from $17.50 per pill to $750. But through 4 years of controversy and public revulsion, his company never backed away from the price — left uncontrolled by a laissez faire federal policy on a drug’s cost.

Now the FTC and the state of New York plan to pry his fingers off the drug once and for all and open it up to some cheap competition. And their lawsuit is asking that Shkreli — with several years left on his prison sentence — be banned permanently from the pharma industry.

Amber Saltzman (Ohana)

Flag­ship's first ven­ture of 2020 is out, and it's all about sperm

A couple years ago, Amber Salzman got a call as she was returning East full-time after a two-year stint running a gene therapy company in California.

It was from someone at Flagship Pioneering, the deep-pocketed biotech venture firm. They had a new company with a new way of thinking about sperm. It had been incubating for over a year, and now they wanted her to run it.

“It exactly fit,” Salzman told Endpoints News. “I just thought I had to do something.”

Pfiz­er ax­es 6 ear­ly to late-stage can­cer stud­ies from the pipeline — with one oth­er cut for sick­le cell dis­ease

Pfizer trimmed a group of 3 R&D programs using their PD-L1 Bavencio — partnered with Merck KGaA — in their latest pipeline cull.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 70,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: In­cyte scores much need­ed PhI­II suc­cess — and of course it’s de­liv­ered by rux­oli­tinib

Incyte’s efforts to breathe a second life into ruxolitinib — its JAK inhibitor sold in pill form as Jakafi — has been greeted with clear, if preliminary and unsurprising, Phase III success.

Topline data from the TRuE-AD2 cements ruxolitinib’s foundational importance for Incyte, and gives analysts hope that there might yet be room for growth in a pipeline that’s suffered multiple R&D setbacks.

Stephen Hahn, AP

The FDA un­veils a new reg­u­la­to­ry frame­work to speed along gene ther­a­pies, re­ward­ing the lead­ing play­ers

Bioregnum Opinion Column by John Carroll

The emphasis at the FDA over the past 5 years or so has been on assisting drug developers as much as they can to speed up regulatory reviews and push more drugs into the market. And they are now crafting a final set of regulations aimed at flagging through a whole new generation of gene therapies in clinical testing at a rapid clip.

In a set of 6 prospective guidances posted on the FDA web site Tuesday morning, FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn committed the agency to staying flexible in handing out designations that are critical to gaining early approvals for drugs that claim to be once-and-done but don’t have anything close to the data needed to prove it.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Mike Bloomberg (AP IMAGES)

Mike Bloomberg joins a grow­ing cho­rus of De­mo­c­ra­t­ic pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates threat­en­ing to go af­ter drug patents

As the mayor of New York City, Mike Bloomberg had a few modest ideas about lowering prescription drug prices in the Big Apple that gained little traction. Now on the campaign trail on a faint hope of clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, the billionaire has some bigger plans — including one that would alter the patent system central to the biopharma business.

In a barebones drug pricing plan posted on Monday, Bloomberg came out blasting President Donald Trump for failing to deliver his promise to lower drug prices, and then making misleading claims about them. The price of over 3,000 drugs still increased at a rate five times higher than inflation in the first six months of 2019, he wrote.