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

It’s fi­nal­ly over: Bio­gen, Ei­sai scrap big Alzheimer’s PhI­I­Is af­ter a pre­dictable BACE cat­a­stro­phe rais­es safe­ty fears

Months after analysts and investors called on Biogen and Eisai to scrap their BACE drug for Alzheimer’s and move on in the wake of a string of late-stage failures and rising safety fears, the partners have called it quits. And they said they were dropping the drug — elenbecestat — after the independent monitoring board raised concerns about…safety.

We don’t know exactly what researchers found in this latest catastrophe, but the companies noted in their release that investigators had determined that the drug was flunking the risk/benefit analysis.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

It's not per­fect, but it's a good start: FDA pan­elists large­ly en­dorse Aim­mune's peanut al­ler­gy ther­a­py

Two days after a fairly benign review from FDA staff, an independent panel of experts largely endorsed the efficacy and safety of Aimmune’s peanut allergy therapy, laying the groundwork for approval with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS).

Traditionally, peanut allergies are managed by avoidance, but the threat of accidental exposure cannot be nullified. Some allergists have devised a way to dose patients off-label with peanut protein derived from supermarket products to wean them off their allergies. The idea behind Aimmune’s product was to standardize the peanut protein, and track the process of desensitization — so when accidental exposure in the real world invariably occurs, patients are less likely to experience a life-threatening allergic reaction.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Rit­ter bombs fi­nal PhI­II for sole lac­tose in­tol­er­ance drug — shares plum­met

More than two years ago Ritter Pharmaceuticals managed to find enough silver lining in its Phase IIb/III study — after missing the top-line mark — to propel its lactose intolerance toward a confirmatory trial. But as it turned out, the enthusiasm only set the biotech and its investors up to be sorely disappointed.

This time around there’s little left to salvage. Not only did RP-G28 fail to beat placebo in reducing lactose intolerance symptoms, patients in the treatment group actually averaged a smaller improvement. On a composite score measuring symptoms like abdominal pain, cramping, bloating and gas, patients given the drug had a mean reduction of 3.159 while the placebo cohort saw a 3.420 drop on average (one-sided p-value = 0.0106).

Ear­ly snap­shot of Ad­verum's eye gene ther­a­py sparks con­cern about vi­sion loss

An early-stage update on Adverum Biotechnologies’ intravitreal gene therapy has triggered investor concern, after patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) saw their vision deteriorate, despite signs that the treatment is improving retinal anatomy.

Adverum, on Wednesday, unveiled 24-week data from the OPTIC trial of its experimental therapy, ADVM-022, in six patients who have been administered with one dose of the therapy. On average, patients in the trial had severe disease with an average of 6.2 anti-VEGF injections in the eight months prior to screening and an average annualized injection frequency of 9.3 injections.

Alex Ar­faei trades his an­a­lyst's post for a new role as biotech VC; Sanofi vet heads to Vi­for

Too often, Alex Arfaei arrived too late. 

An analyst at BMO Capital Markets, he’d meet with biotech or pharmaceutical heads for their IPO or secondary funding and his brain, trained on a biology degree and six years at Merck and Endo, would spring with questions: Why this biomarker? Why this design? Why not this endpoint? Not that he could do anything about it. These execs were coming for clinical money; their decisions had been made and finalized long ago.

Arde­lyx bags its first FDA OK for IBS, set­ting up a show­down with Al­ler­gan, Iron­wood

In the first of what it hopes will be a couple of major regulatory milestones for its new drug, Ardelyx has bagged an FDA approval to market Ibsrela (tenapanor) for irritable bowel syndrome.

The drug’s first application will be for IBS with constipation (IBS-C), inhibiting sodium-hydrogen exchanger NHE3 in the GI tract in such a way as to increase bowel movements and decrease abdominal pain. This comes on the heels of two successful Phase III trials.

Ver­tex deal for Scot­land — no deal for Eng­land

Cystic fibrosis (CF) drug maker Vertex Pharmaceuticals — which is still locked in negotiation with NHS England to endorse the use of its medicines — has successfully negotiated a deal with Scottish authorities.

A month ago, the Scottish Medicines Consortium spurned two of the company’s medicines — Orkambi and Symkevi — citing uncertainty over their long-term efficacy in relation to their cost.

Lisa M. DeAngelis, MSKCC

MSK picks brain can­cer ex­pert Lisa DeAn­ge­lis as its next CMO — fol­low­ing José Basel­ga’s con­tro­ver­sial ex­it

It’s official. Memorial Sloan Kettering has picked a brain cancer expert as its new physician-in-chief and CMO, replacing José Baselga, who left under a cloud after being singled out by The New York Times and ProPublica for failing to properly air his lucrative industry ties.

His replacement, who now will be in charge of MSK’s cutting-edge research work as well as the cancer care delivered by hundreds of practitioners, is Lisa M. DeAngelis. DeAngelis had been chair of the neurology department and co-founder of MSK’s brain tumor center and was moved in to the acting CMO role in the wake of Baselga’s departure.

Penn team adapts CAR-T tech, reengi­neer­ing mouse cells to treat car­diac fi­bro­sis

After establishing itself as one of the pioneer research centers in the world for CAR-T cancer therapies, creating new attack vehicles to eradicate cancer cells, a team at Penn Medicine has begun the tricky transition of using the basic technology for heart repair work.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.