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

BiTE® Plat­form and the Evo­lu­tion To­ward Off-The-Shelf Im­muno-On­col­o­gy Ap­proach­es

Despite rapid advances in the field of immuno-oncology that have transformed the cancer treatment landscape, many cancer patients are still left behind.1,2 Not every person has access to innovative therapies designed specifically to treat his or her disease. Many currently available immuno-oncology-based approaches and chemotherapies have brought long-term benefits to some patients — but many patients still need other therapeutic options.3

Is a pow­er­house Mer­ck team prepar­ing to leap past Roche — and leave Gilead and Bris­tol My­ers be­hind — in the race to TIG­IT dom­i­na­tion?

Roche caused quite a stir at ASCO with its first look at some positive — but not so impressive — data for their combination of Tecentriq with their anti-TIGIT drug tiragolumab. But some analysts believe that Merck is positioned to make a bid — soon — for the lead in the race to a second-wave combo immuno-oncology approach with its own ambitious early-stage program tied to a dominant Keytruda.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

FDA de­lays de­ci­sion on No­var­tis’ po­ten­tial block­buster MS drug, wip­ing away pri­or­i­ty re­view

So much for a speedy review.

In February, Novartis announced that an application for their much-touted multiple sclerosis drug ofatumumab had been accepted and, with the drug company cashing in on one of their priority review vouchers, the agency was due for a decision by June.

But with June less than 48 hours old, Novartis announced the agency has extended their review, pushing back the timeline for approval or rejection to September. The Swiss pharma filed the application in December, meaning their new schedule will be nearly in line with the standard 10-month window period had they not used the priority voucher.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 83,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

GSK presents case to ex­pand use of its lu­pus drug in pa­tients with kid­ney dis­ease, but the field is evolv­ing. How long will the mo­nop­oly last?

In 2011, GlaxoSmithKline’s Benlysta became the first biologic to win approval for lupus patients. Nine years on, the British drugmaker has unveiled detailed positive results from a study testing the drug in lupus patients with associated kidney disease — a post-marketing requirement from the initial FDA approval.

Lupus is a drug developer’s nightmare. In the last six decades, there has been just one FDA approval (Benlysta), with the field resembling a graveyard in recent years with a string of failures including UCB and Biogen’s late-stage flop, as well as defeats in Xencor and Sanofi’s programs. One of the main reasons the success has eluded researchers is because lupus, akin to cancer, is not just one disease — it really is a disease of many diseases, noted Al Roy, executive director of Lupus Clinical Investigators Network, an initiative of New York-based Lupus Research Alliance that claims it is the world’s leading private funder of lupus research, in an interview.

Leen Kawas, Athira CEO (Athira)

Can a small biotech suc­cess­ful­ly tack­le an Ever­est climb like Alzheimer’s? Athi­ra has $85M and some in­flu­en­tial back­ers ready to give it a shot

There haven’t been a lot of big venture rounds for biotech companies looking to run a Phase II study in Alzheimer’s.

The field has been a disaster over the past decade. Amyloid didn’t pan out as a target — going down in a litany of Phase III failures — and is now making its last stand at Biogen. Tau is a comer, but when you look around and all you see is destruction, the idea of backing a startup trying to find complex cocktails to swing the course of this devilishly complicated memory-wasting disease would daunt the pluckiest investors.

Bris­tol-My­ers is clean­ing up the post-Cel­gene merg­er pipeline, and they’re sweep­ing out an ex­per­i­men­tal check­point in the process

Back during the lead up to the $74 billion buyout of Celgene, the big biotech’s leadership did a little housecleaning with a major pact it had forged with Jounce. Out went the $2.6 billion deal and a collaboration on ICOS and PD-1.

Celgene, though, also added a $530 million deal — $50 million up front — to get the worldwide rights to JTX-8064, a drug that targets the LILRB2 receptor on macrophages.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 83,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Gilead bol­sters its case for block­buster hope­ful fil­go­tinib as FDA pon­ders its de­ci­sion

Before remdesivir soaked up the spotlight amid the coronavirus crisis, Gilead’s filgotinib was the star experimental drug tapped to rake in billions competing with other JAK inhibitors made by rivals including AbbVie and Eli Lilly.

Now, long term data on the drug — discovered by Gilead’s partners at Galapagos and posted as part of a virtual medical conference — have solidified the durability and safety of filgotinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, spanning data from three late-stage trials. An FDA decision on the drug is expected this year.

UP­DAT­ED: Es­ti­mat­ing a US price tag of $5K per course, remde­sivir is set to make bil­lions for Gilead, says key an­a­lyst

Data on remdesivir — the first drug shown to benefit Covid-19 patients in a randomized, controlled trial setting — may be murky, but its maker Gilead could reap billions from the sales of the failed Ebola therapy, according to an estimate by a prominent Wall Street analyst. However, the forecast, which is based on a $5,000-per-course US price tag, triggered the ire of one top drug price expert.

Covid-19 roundup: Mod­er­na read­ies to en­ter PhI­II in Ju­ly, As­traZeneca not far be­hind; EU ready to ne­go­ti­ate vac­cine ac­cess with $2.7B fund

Moderna may soon add another first to the Covid-19 vaccine race.

In March, the mRNA biotech was the first company to put a Covid-19 vaccine into humans. Next month, they may become the first company to put their vaccine into the large, late-stage trials that are needed to prove whether the vaccine is effective.

In an interview with JAMA editor Howard Bauchner, NIAID chief Anthony Fauci said that a 30,000-person, Phase III trial for Moderna’s vaccine could start in July. The news comes a week after Moderna began a Phase II study that will enroll several hundred people.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 83,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.