Guest col­umn: The re­al cost of drug de­vel­op­ment

Pun­dits of drug de­vel­op­ment costs use very dif­fer­ent mod­els in com­put­ing the true spend in de­vel­op­ing drugs. At one end of the spec­trum is the phar­ma mod­el: Take all the R&D costs over a decade, and di­vide by the num­ber of drug ap­provals in a sim­i­lar time frame. This gives an in­dus­try av­er­age of over a bil­lion dol­lars per drug and in­cludes the cost of drug fail­ures and re­peat­ed in­di­ca­tions be­fore a suc­cess­ful one is achieved.

Mike Pow­ell

The Tufts Cen­ter for Drug De­vel­op­ment tracks this care­ful­ly, and their re­cent es­ti­mate is $2.6 bil­lion cost per new NME drug. It seems in­cred­i­ble that a phar­ma com­pa­ny may know­ing­ly spend over a bil­lion dol­lars up­front on a sin­gle de­vel­op­ment plan, but by the time the drug hits the ship­ping dock on the way to cus­tomers, this is a fair­ly re­al­is­tic way of ex­press­ing the cost of de­vel­op­ment for that drug.

At the oth­er end of the spec­trum is a pre­dic­tion based on the ac­tu­al costs to con­duct a study with the min­i­mal num­ber of pa­tients for an or­phan in­di­ca­tion. A re­cent study in End­points re­port­ed that the mean piv­otal tri­al cost was $19 mil­lion for a drug ap­proval.

With­out giv­ing away the punch­line, sad­ly, this is some­what akin to claim­ing the re­al cost of dri­ving your car is the cost to fill the gas tank. Or the cost of rais­ing kids is just the food they eat and clothes they wear. In all three cas­es, noth­ing could be fur­ther from the truth.

Ja­son Pitts

Biotech/ven­ture firms al­so have a point of view on the cost for clin­i­cal-stage biotech drug de­vel­op­ment to FDA ap­proval, ie, what do we ac­tu­al­ly spend to take drugs from Phase I through ap­proval. This ap­proach has some con­ve­nient cost sav­ings built in: for ex­am­ple, for aca­d­e­m­ic start-ups, much of the pri­ma­ry re­search cost is borne by NIH and oth­er gov­ern­ment fund­ing, and for phar­ma spin-out com­pa­nies much of the ear­ly work is con­ve­nient­ly tak­en care of by the phar­ma be­fore the biotech com­pa­ny is formed. That leaves just the costs for a clin­i­cal de­vel­op­ment pro­gram from Phase I through FDA ap­proval.

Sim­ple.

Well, hard­ly sim­ple. Sofinno­va, like oth­er ven­ture firms that spe­cial­ize in clin­i­cal-stage drug de­vel­op­ment, has learned through ex­pe­ri­ence what the re­al cost is to push drugs from Phase 1 to FDA ap­proval. Sofinno­va tracks the ‘ful­ly loaded cost of per-pa­tient’ for our com­pa­nies, and has done so for more than a decade. This is ba­si­cal­ly the ful­ly-loaded costs look­ing at what a biotech com­pa­ny spends to dose each pa­tient in­clud­ing the ful­ly loaded costs (GMP man­u­fac­tur­ing, leased space, cost of em­ploy­ees, and oth­er fac­tors).

Tak­ing this ap­proach — and as­sum­ing you can run a biotech com­pa­ny as ef­fi­cient­ly as pos­si­ble — then you take the to­tal spend di­vid­ed by the ac­tu­al num­ber of pa­tients dosed with the drug/place­bo. For ex­am­ple, if a biotech spends $20 mil­lion over 2 years and dos­es 100 pa­tients, the ful­ly loaded cost is $200,000 per pa­tient. This large, ful­ly amor­tized cost per pa­tient num­ber some­times caus­es con­ster­na­tion in the in­dus­try as the di­rect clin­i­cal costs to the CRO are, say, on­ly $5.5 mil­lion, where the re­main­ing $14.5 mil­lion was spent on every­thing else: ba­si­cal­ly the in­fra­struc­ture need­ed to do drug de­vel­op­ment: strong sci­en­tists and clin­i­cians, GMP drug sup­ply, tox­i­col­o­gy stud­ies, and the elec­tric bills that keep the lights on. Va­ca­tion pay, em­ploy­ee bonus and health plans, busi­ness trav­el, IPO and fundrais­ing costs.

If they are do­ing things right, toss in the De­cem­ber hol­i­day par­ty, and jour­nal club costs. It is these ful­ly amor­tized costs that add up quick­ly.

We first com­put­ed the ful­ly loaded cost per pa­tient math cir­ca 2005. As our own biotech port­fo­lio was still grow­ing, we in­for­mal­ly so­licit­ed da­ta from dozens of clin­i­cal com­pa­nies fund­ed by brand name ven­ture firms, in­clud­ing sev­er­al brand-name, Sand Hill Rd firms, and com­bined them to make a con­fi­den­tial dataset of sev­er­al dozen, clin­i­cal­ly ma­ture com­pa­nies, yield­ing the fol­low­ing com­piled da­ta:

Av­er­age com­pa­ny spend = $78 mil­lion

Av­er­age num­ber of pa­tients = 402 (geo­met­ric mean av­er­age)

Av­er­age per pa­tient cost = $168,000.

We felt this was shock­ing­ly high. When we ex­am­ined on­col­o­gy com­pa­nies on­ly, the av­er­age cost per pa­tient was even high­er, $258,000, and for pro­tein ther­a­peu­tic com­pa­nies it was $345,000 per pa­tient.

Al­though this sub­set of biotech com­pa­nies was lim­it­ed at the time, the mes­sage was un­mis­tak­able: The cost to run a ven­ture-backed, clin­i­cal stage biotech for a few years, dos­ing hun­dreds of pa­tients (which is typ­i­cal­ly a very ag­gres­sive num­ber re­quired for FDA ap­proval) is cer­tain­ly not $19 mil­lion.

In the last decade, we have had 17 FDA drug ap­provals come out of Sofinno­va-fund­ed com­pa­nies. Three of these com­pa­nies were ac­quired be­fore FDA ap­proval, and so we don’t have full in­sight in­to the to­tal cost of de­vel­op­ment for these com­pa­nies.

Nonethe­less, the re­main­ing 14 com­pa­nies that took their drugs all the way to FDA ap­proval col­lec­tive­ly raised/spent $4.65 bil­lion, giv­ing an av­er­age cost per drug to ap­proval of $327 mil­lion (+/-264 mil­lion, SD).

Ven­ture-backed biotech com­pa­nies are fair­ly ef­fi­cient at de­vel­op­ing drugs, and we be­lieve this is part of the rea­son why the biotech in­dus­try has boomed for more than two decades.

Bot­tom line: Drug de­vel­op­ment is an ex­pen­sive busi­ness, but those that can do it more ef­fi­cient­ly and cheap­ly than oth­ers should be able to stay in busi­ness.

So why do we do it? Why do we spend so much on de­vel­op­ing drugs, and in­vest­ing in the qual­i­ty of life, for our­selves and our chil­dren? Many things in life are more ex­pen­sive than they might seem on face val­ue, in­clud­ing the car you dri­ve, the chil­dren you raise, and the life-sav­ing drugs you take. Yet all pro­vide a quan­tum change in qual­i­ty of life, de­spite the oc­ca­sion­al flat tire, the di­a­pers and cost of col­lege and, yes, the cost to demon­strate drug ef­fi­ca­cy and safe­ty, held to one of the high­est stan­dards imag­in­able: FDA ap­proval.


Mike Pow­ell is a gen­er­al part­ner and Ja­son Pitts is an as­so­ciate at Sofinno­va Ven­tures.
Im­age: SHUT­TER­STOCK

Norbert Bischofberger. Kronos

Backed by some of the biggest names in biotech, Nor­bert Bischof­berg­er gets his megaround for plat­form tech out of MIT

A little over a year ago when I reported on Norbert Bischofberger’s jump from the CSO job at giant Gilead to a tiny upstart called Kronos, I noted that with his connections in biotech finance, that $18 million launch round he was starting off with could just as easily have been $100 million or more.

With his first anniversary now behind him, Bischofberger has that mega-round in the bank.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Francesco De Rubertis

Medicxi is rolling out its biggest fund ever to back Eu­rope's top 'sci­en­tists with strange ideas'

Francesco De Rubertis built Medicxi to be the kind of biotech venture player he would have liked to have known back when he was a full time scientist.

“When I was a scientist 20 years ago I would have loved Medicxi,’ the co-founder tells me. It’s the kind of place run by and for investigators, what the Medicxi partner calls “scientists with strange ideas — a platform for the drug hunter and scientific entrepreneur. That’s what I wanted when I was a scientist.”

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Af­ter a decade, Vi­iV CSO John Pot­tage says it's time to step down — and he's hand­ing the job to long­time col­league Kim Smith

ViiV Healthcare has always been something unique in the global drug industry.

Owned by GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer — with GSK in the lead as majority owner — it was created 10 years ago in a time of deep turmoil for the field as something independent of the pharma giants, but with access to lots of infrastructural support on demand. While R&D at the mother ship inside GSK was souring, a razor-focused ViiV provided a rare bright spot, challenging Gilead on a lucrative front in delivering new combinations that require fewer therapies with a more easily tolerated regimen.

They kept a massive number of people alive who would otherwise have been facing a death sentence. And they made money.

And throughout, John Pottage has been the chief scientific and chief medical officer.

Until now.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Novotech CRO Ex­pands Chi­na Team as Biotech De­mand for Clin­i­cal Tri­als In­creas­es up to 79%

An increase in demand of up to 79% for clinical trials in China has prompted Novotech the Asia-Pacific CRO to rapidly expand the China team, appointing expert local clinical executives to their Shanghai and Hong Kong offices. The company is planning to expand their team by 30% over the next quarter.

Novotech China has seen considerable demand recently which is borne out by research from GlobalData:
A global migration of clinical research is occurring from high-income countries to low and middle-income countries with emerging economies. Over the period 2017 to 2018, for example, the number of clinical trial sites opened by biotech companies in Asia-Pacific increased by 35% compared to 8% in the rest of the world, with growth as high as 79% in China.
Novotech CEO Dr John Moller said China offers the largest population in the world, rapid economic growth, and an increasing willingness by government to invest in research and development.
Novotech’s 23 years of experience working in the region means we are the ideal CRO partner for USA biotechs wanting to tap the research expertise and opportunities that China offers.
There are over 22,000 active investigators in Greater China, with about 5,000 investigators with experience on at least 3 studies (source GlobalData).

On a glob­al romp, Boehringer BD team picks up its third R&D al­liance for Ju­ly — this time fo­cused on IPF with $50M up­front

Boehringer Ingelheim’s BD team is on a global deal spree. The German pharma company just wrapped its third deal in 3 weeks, going back to Korea for its latest pipeline pact — this time focused on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

They’re handing over $50 million to get their hands on BBT-877, an ATX inhibitor from Korea’s Bridge Biotherapeutics that was on display at a science conference in Dallas recently. There’s not a whole lot of data to evaluate the prospects here.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Servi­er scoots out of an­oth­er col­lab­o­ra­tion with Macro­Gen­ics, writ­ing off their $40M

Servier is walking out on a partnership with MacroGenics $MGNX — for the second time.

After the market closed on Wednesday MacroGenics put out word that Servier is severing a deal — inked close to 7 years ago — to collaborate on the development of flotetuzumab and other Dual-Affinity Re-Targeting (DART) drugs in its pipeline.

MacroGenics CEO Scott Koenig shrugged off the departure of Servier, which paid $20 million to kick off the alliance and $20 million to option flotetuzumab — putting a heavily back-ended $1 billion-plus in additional biobuck money on the table for the anti-CD123/CD3 bispecific and its companion therapies.

Den­mark's Gen­mab hits the jack­pot with $500M+ US IPO as small­er biotechs rake in a com­bined $147M

Danish drugmaker Genmab A/S is off to the races with perhaps one of the biggest biotech public listings in decades, having reaped over $500 million on the Nasdaq, as it positions itself as a bonafide player in antibody-based cancer therapies.

The company, which has long served as J&J’s $JNJ key partner on the blockbuster multiple myeloma therapy Darzalex, has asserted it has been looking to launch its own proprietary product — one it owns at least half of — by 2025.

FDA over­rides ad­comm opin­ions a fifth of the time, study finds — but why?

For drugmakers, FDA advisory panels are often an apprehended barometer of regulators’ final decisions. While the experts’ endorsement or criticism often translate directly to final outcomes, the FDA sometimes stun observers by diverging from recommendations.

A new paper out of Milbank Quarterly put a number on that trend by analyzing 376 voting meetings and subsequent actions from 2008 through 2015, confirming the general impression that regulators tend to agree with the adcomms most of the time — with discordances in only 22% of the cases.

UP­DAT­ED: With loom­ing ‘apoc­a­lypse of drug re­sis­tance,’ Mer­ck’s com­bi­na­tion an­tibi­ot­ic scores FDA ap­proval on two fronts

Merck — one of the last large biopharmaceuticals companies in the beleaguered field of antibiotic drug development — on Wednesday said the FDA had sanctioned the approval of its combination antibacterial for the treatment of complicated urinary tract and intra-abdominal infections.

To curb the rise of drug-resistant bacteria and maintain the efficacy of the therapy, Recarbrio (and other antibacterials) — the drug must be used to treat or prevent infections that are proven or strongly suspected to be caused by susceptible gram-negative bacteria, Merck $MRK said.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.