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

Com­mu­ni­cat­ing the val­ue of pre­ci­sion med­i­cine

By Natasha Cowan, Content Marketing Manager at Blue Latitude Health.
Many stakeholders are confused by novel precision medicines, including patients and healthcare professionals. So, how can industry help them to navigate this complexity?

Precision medicine represents a new paradigm in healthcare. It embodies the shift from treating many patients with the same therapy, to having the tools to identify the best treatment for every patient.

(Image: Associated Press)

Amarin emerges from an ex­pert pan­el re­view with a clear en­dorse­ment for Vas­cepa and high odds of suc­cess when the FDA weighs in for­mal­ly

Several FDA experts who gathered Thursday to consider the landmark approval of Vascepa to reduce cardio events in an at-risk population voiced their unease about various aspects of the efficacy and safety data, or ultimately the population it should be used to treat. But the overwhelming belief that the data pointed to the drug’s benefit and clearly outweighed risks carried the day for Amarin.

The panel voted unanimously (16 to 0) to support the company’s positive data presentation — backing an OK for expanding the label to include reducing cardio risk. The vote points Amarin $AMRN down a short path to a formal decision by the FDA, with the odds heavily in its favor. Chances are the rest of the questions about the future of this drug will be hashed out in the label’s small print.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 65,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

What does $62B buy you these days? A lot, says Take­da ex­ecs as the phar­ma play­er promis­es a block­buster R&D fu­ture

First comes the $62 billion buyout. Then comes the asset auction and reorganization to pay down debt. Now comes the detailed pledge of a bigger, brighter future in drug development.

That’s where Takeda finds itself on R&D day today, about 11 months after closing on their Shire acquisition. R&D chief Andy Plump is joining CEO Christophe Weber and other top members of the team to outline a new set of priorities in the greatly expanded pipeline at Takeda, which has jumped into the top ranks of the world’s pharma giants in the wake of the Shire deal.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 65,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

BeiGene CEO John Oyler at an Endpoints event in Shanghai, October 2018 (Credit: Endpoints News/PharmCube)

UP­DAT­ED: Chi­na's BeiGene scores first-ever FDA ap­proval — but can they carve up J&J's block­buster fran­chise?

Weeks after Amgen took a $2.7 billion stake in BeiGene, the Beijing-based biotech has secured its first-ever FDA approval for zanubrutinib, a BTK inhibitor, months ahead of schedule.

BeiGene’s drug, branded as Brukinsa, has secured accelerated approval for adult patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) — a typically aggressive, rare, form of blood cancer — who have received at least one prior therapy.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 65,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Spe­cial re­port: Twen­ty ex­tra­or­di­nary women in bio­phar­ma R&D who worked their way to the top

What differentiates a woman leader in biopharma R&D from a man?

Not much, except there are fewer of them in senior posts. Data suggest women are not more risk-averse, family-oriented or less confident than their male counterparts — indeed the differences between the two sexes are negligible. But a glance at the top R&D positions in Big Pharma leaves little doubt that upward migration in the executive ranks of biopharma R&D is tough.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 65,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

GSK's asth­ma bi­o­log­ic Nu­cala scores in rare blood dis­or­der study

GlaxoSmithKline’s asthma drug Nucala, which received a resounding FDA rejection for use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) last year, has shown promise in a rare blood disorder.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 65,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Mer­ck buys a fledg­ling neu­rode­gen­er­a­tive biotech spawned by an old GSK dis­cov­ery al­liance. What’s up with that?

Avalon Ventures chief Jay Lichter has a well-known yen for drug development programs picked up in academia. And what he found in Haoxing Xu’s lab at the University of Michigan pricked his interest enough to launch one of his umbrella biotechs in San Diego.

Xu’s work laid the foundation for Avalon to launch Calporta, which has been working on finding small molecule agonists of TRPML1 (transient receptor potential cation channel, mucolipin subfamily, member 1) for lysosomal storage disorders. And that pathway, they believe, points to new approaches on major market neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s, ALS and Alzheimer’s.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 65,500+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Carson Block. Muddy Waters via YouTube

Shorts ga­lore: Mud­dy Wa­ters sees slide for Pep­tiDream, tweets con­cerns about Fi­bro­Gen's new da­ta

The short seller Muddy Waters is taking aim at Japan’s most profitable biotech, projecting a slide for a company that has skyrocketed over the last four years. Meanwhile, the firm tweeted out an analysis accusing FibroGen of manipulating data to obscure safety concerns in their latest reveal, although some investors seem satisfied by the biotech’s explanation.

Muddy Waters shorted PeptiDream, a Japanese biotech-for-hire that leveraged its peptide library into partnerships with some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, a 50% profit margin and $6 billion valuation. The firm noted that despite its esteem, PeptiDream has failed to bring a drug to market 13 years after its 2006 launch (although this is not especially rare for biotech).

Pin­cer move­ment: Cal­i­for­nia biotech gets $35M to suf­fo­cate can­cer in co­or­di­nat­ed at­tack

Having served in Afghanistan, the navy veteran leading California-based EpicentRx wants to leave no patient behind with his arsenal of anti-cancer drugs. On Thursday, the company was given a $35 million boost to further its mission.

The injection of funds will be used to shepherd its late-stage CD47 drug, RRx-001, to the FDA for marketing, and its oncolytic virus program into the clinic.

RRx-001, engineered as an agent that makes tumor cells more sensitive to therapy, is in a Phase III trial in combination with chemotherapy for use in third-line and beyond small cell lung cancer (SCLC). The drug has been granted orphan drug designation from FDA for SCLC, neuroendocrine cancer and glioblastoma.