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

Eli Lilly CEO David Ricks (Evan Vucci/AP Images)

A P val­ue of 0.38? NE­JM re­sults raise new ques­tions for Eli Lil­ly's vaunt­ed Covid an­ti­body

Generally, a P value of 0.38 means your drug failed and by a fair margin. Depending on the company, the compound and the trial, it might mean the end of the program. It could trigger layoffs.

For Eli Lilly, though, it was part of the key endpoint on a trial that landed them a $1.2 billion deal with the US government to supply up to nearly 1 million Covid-19 antibodies.

So what does one make of that? Was the endpoint not so important, as Lilly maintains? Or did the US government promise a princely sum for a pedestrian drug?

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 92,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Noubar Afeyan, Flagship founder and CEO (Victor Boyko/Getty Images)

UP­DAT­ED: Flag­ship launch­es Sen­da Bio­sciences with $88M in back­ing, look­ing to pi­o­neer the field of 'In­ter­sys­tems Bi­ol­o­gy'

Flagship Pioneering has a fresh company out this week, one that aims to lay the groundwork for a whole new discipline.

Senda Biosciences launched Wednesday with $88 million in Flagship cash. The goal? Gain insights into the molecular connections between people and coevolved nonhuman species like plants and bacteria, paving the way for “Intersystems Biology.”

Guillaume Pfefer has been tapped to run the show, a 25-year biotech veteran who comes from GSK after leading the development of the company’s shingles vaccine.

Daphne Koller, Getty

Bris­tol My­er­s' Richard Har­g­reaves pays $70M to launch a neu­rode­gen­er­a­tion al­liance with a star play­er in the ma­chine learn­ing world

Bristol Myers Squibb is turning to one of the star upstarts in the machine learning world to go back to the drawing board and come up with the disease models needed to find drugs that can work against two of the toughest targets in the neuro world.

Daphne Koller’s well-funded insitro is getting $70 million in cash and near-term milestones to use their machine learning platform to create induced pluripotent stem cell-derived disease models for ALS and frontotemporal dementia.

Eli Lilly CEO David Ricks at the Rose Garden, May 26, 2020 (Evan Vucci/AP Images)

Eli Lil­ly lines up a block­buster deal for Covid-19 an­ti­body, right af­ter it failed a NI­AID tri­al

Two days after Eli Lilly conceded that its antibody bamlanivimab was a flop in hospitalized Covid-19 patients, the US government is preparing to make it a blockbuster.

The pharma giant reported early Wednesday that it struck a deal to supply the feds with 300,000 vials of the drug at a cost of $375 million — once it gets an EUA stamp from the FDA. And once that 2-month supply deal is done, the government has an option on another 650,000 doses on the same terms — which could potentially add another $812 million.

CMO Merdad Parsey (Gilead)

Gilead hits the brakes on a tri­fec­ta of mid- and late-stage stud­ies for their trou­bled fil­go­tinib pro­gram. It's up to the FDA now

Gilead $GILD execs haven’t decided exactly what to do with filgotinib in the wake of the slapdown at the FDA on their rheumatoid arthritis application, but they’re taking a time out for a slate of studies until they can gain some clarity from the agency. And without encouraging guidance, this drug could clearly be axed from the pipeline.

In their Q3 report out Wednesday afternoon, the company says researchers have “paused” a Phase III study for psoriatic arthritis along with a pair of Phase II trials for ankylosing spondylitis and uveitis. Late-stage studies for ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s are continuing, but you can see for yourself how big a hole this leaves in the inflammatory disease pipeline, with obvious implications if the company abandons filgo altogether.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 92,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Hal Barron, GSK R&D chief

GSK's Hal Bar­ron ax­es a once-prized drug from J&J, con­tin­u­ing shift away from res­pi­ra­to­ry

Hal Barron’s revamp of the GlaxoSmithKline pipeline continued yesterday, as the British pharma announced they axed an asthma drug they once promised over $200 million to acquire.

Then led by CEO Andrew Witty and R&D chief Patrick Vallance, GSK picked up the drug, known elegantly as GSK3772847, from J&J in 2016, hoping to expand on the beachhead in asthma they had established the year prior with Breo Ellipta. They promised up to $227 million in upfront payments and milestones.

Ar­cus and As­traZeneca part­ner on a high stakes an­ti-TIG­IT/PD-L1 PhI­II can­cer study, look­ing to im­prove on a stan­dard of care

For AstraZeneca, the PACIFIC trial in Stage III non-small cell lung cancer remains one of the big triumphs for AstraZeneca’s oncology R&D group. It not only made their PD-L1 Imfinzi a franchise player with a solid advance in a large niche of the lung cancer market, the study — which continues to offer data on the long-range efficacy of their drug — also helped salve the vicious sting of the failure of the CTLA-4 combo in the MYSTIC study.

Re­gen­eron posts sec­ond look on Covid-19 an­ti­body cock­tail, boost­ing its case for EUA — but what about symp­tom al­le­vi­a­tion?

Regeneron has revealed a second cut of data on its Covid-19 antibody cocktail in the outpatient setting — data that it has sent straight to the FDA to boost its emergency use authorization request.

The new results reinforce what’s reported from the same trial last month, Regeneron said, incorporating a total of 799 non-hospitalized patients with mild-to-moderate disease. REGN-COV2 reduced viral load and patient medical visits (anything ranging from hospitalizations, emergency room, urgent care visits to physician office and telemedicine visits), meeting all the key endpoints.

No­var­tis buys a new gene ther­a­py for vi­sion loss, and this is one pre­clin­i­cal ven­ture that did­n't come cheap

Cyrus Mozayeni got excited when he began to explore the academic work of Ehud Isacoff and John G. Flannery at UC Berkeley.

Together, they were engaged in finding a gene therapy approach to pan-genotypic vision restoration in patients with photoreceptor-based blindness, potentially restoring the vision of a broad group of patients. And they did it by using a vector to deliver the genetic sequence for light sensing proteins.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 92,800+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.