How bio­phar­ma com­pa­nies use NIH and vice ver­sa

An ar­gu­ment has been brew­ing on Capi­tol Hill and else­where that boils down to the the­o­ry that US tax­pay­ers are fronting bil­lions of dol­lars’ worth of pub­lic re­search that trans­lates in­to ear­ly-stage prod­ucts that are lat­er sold to com­pa­nies, go on to win FDA ap­proval and then reap mil­lions or bil­lions in sales, al­though the gov­ern­ment nev­er sees a dime of those earn­ings.

With the help of a new Con­gres­sion­al Re­search Ser­vice (CRS) re­port pub­lished Fri­day and some oth­er ma­te­ri­als, Fo­cus can break down what’s hap­pen­ing.

1. Do tax­pay­ers pay for bil­lions in re­search?

Yes. In FY 2018, the Na­tion­al In­sti­tutes of Health (NIH) had a bud­get of more than $34 bil­lion to sup­port more than 300,000 sci­en­tists and re­search per­son­nel work­ing at over 2,500 in­sti­tu­tions across the US and abroad. And from FY 1998 to FY 2003, Con­gress dou­bled the NIH bud­get. The to­tal NIH ap­pro­pri­a­tion for FY 2019 is $39 bil­lion.

2. Does NIH re­search trans­late in­to ear­ly-stage prod­ucts?

Some­times. And here’s where the quan­tifi­ca­tion of NIH’s work gets tricky.

As the CRS re­port notes, over 50% of NIH fund­ing sup­ports ba­sic re­search, mean­ing, “NIH fund­ed re­search is, to a greater ex­tent, in­di­rect­ly in­volved—by gen­er­at­ing sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge and in­no­va­tions that aid in phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal de­vel­op­ment. For ex­am­ple, im­por­tant ba­sic ad­vances in re­search, such as re­com­bi­nant DNA, can lead to the de­vel­op­ment of whole new class­es of drugs.”

But drugs with a patent held by NIH or NIH-fund­ed re­searchers rep­re­sent a small por­tion of all ap­proved drugs by the US Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion (FDA). A Health Af­fairs study from 2011 found that 9% of the new drugs ap­proved by FDA from 1988 to 2005 were based on a patent held by ei­ther a gov­ern­ment agency or a non­govern­men­tal in­sti­tu­tion that had re­ceived gov­ern­ment sup­port.

An­oth­er study from the New Eng­land Med­ical Jour­nal in 2011 found that of the 1,541 drugs ap­proved by FDA from 1990 through 2007, 143, or 9.3%, re­sult­ed from work con­duct­ed in pub­lic sec­tor re­search in­sti­tu­tions, in­clud­ing all uni­ver­si­ties, re­search hos­pi­tals, non­prof­it re­search in­sti­tutes and fed­er­al lab­o­ra­to­ries in the US.

But when the di­rect and in­di­rect im­pact of NIH fund­ing is con­sid­ered, the re­sults show a larg­er NIH im­pact. For in­stance, a PNAS study from 2018 found that NIH was “di­rect­ly or in­di­rect­ly as­so­ci­at­ed with every one of 210 NMEs [new mol­e­c­u­lar en­ti­ties] ap­proved from 2010-2016.”

Sim­i­lar­ly, 2018 study de­ter­mined that NIH in­vest­ments in a par­tic­u­lar re­search area in­crease sub­se­quent pri­vate sec­tor patent­ing in that area—a $10 mil­lion in­crease in NIH fund­ing for a re­search area re­sults in 2.7 ad­di­tion­al patents.

But as NIH’s Steven Fer­gu­son not­ed in the Jour­nal of Com­mer­cial Biotech­nol­o­gy in 2012, it’s not as if NIH can take these ear­ly-stage prod­ucts to mar­ket. And as with bio­phar­ma com­pa­nies, the num­ber of fail­ures con­tin­ues to heav­i­ly out­num­ber the ap­provals. Fer­gu­son said: “Be­cause many, if not most of the tech­nolo­gies de­vel­oped at the NIH and FDA, are ear­ly stage bio­med­ical tech­nolo­gies, the time and de­vel­op­ment risks to de­vel­op a com­mer­cial prod­uct are high.”

3. Does NIH make mon­ey from its ear­ly-stage prod­ucts?

Yes. From 1988 to 2004, NIH en­tered in­to al­most 2,500 li­cense agree­ments and gen­er­at­ed more than $500 mil­lion in roy­al­ty rev­enues. More re­cent­ly, roy­al­ties have amount­ed to more than $100 mil­lion per year.

NIH’s Of­fice of Tech­nol­o­gy Trans­fer FY 2014 an­nu­al re­port ex­plains how roy­al­ties col­lect­ed on prod­uct sales, pri­mar­i­ly drugs and bi­o­log­ics, ac­count for 84% of the $138 mil­lion in roy­al­ties col­lect­ed in 2014. And the three best-sell­ing prod­ucts uti­liz­ing tech­nol­o­gy li­censed from NIH that year were Janssen’s Prezista, a nov­el pro­tease in­hibitor for the treat­ment of HIV-1 in pa­tients who are non-re­spon­sive to ex­ist­ing an­ti­retro­vi­ral ther­a­pies, Mer­ck’s Gar­dasil, a vac­cine to pro­tect against cer­vi­cal can­cer, and As­traZeneca’s Synagis, a mon­o­clon­al an­ti­body for the treat­ment of Res­pi­ra­to­ry Syn­cy­tial Virus (RSV) in in­fants.

4. What else is com­ing?

Oth­er ques­tions are mount­ing now, in­clud­ing whether the roy­al­ties that NIH and oth­er gov­ern­ment agen­cies reap from its ear­ly-stage prod­ucts are ad­e­quate, and whether NIH should be able to step in and low­er the price of a prod­uct that it helped to de­vel­op.

Late last month, some are ques­tion­ing why the CDC is not reap­ing prof­its from patents it has on a li­censed HIV drug brought to mar­ket by Gilead. Gilead, how­ev­er, con­tends that the patents are in­valid.

More re­cent­ly, the Na­tion­al In­sti­tute of Stan­dards and Tech­nol­o­gy (NIST) is look­ing in­to the idea of clar­i­fy­ing that the gov­ern­ment can­not uni­lat­er­al­ly set prices for cer­tain phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals. The is­sue at hand con­cerns whether cer­tain reg­u­la­tions (nev­er used by NIH), un­der the Bayh-Dole Act, should be al­tered so the gov­ern­ment can­not con­trol the price of some phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals it helped to de­vel­op. Sev­er­al groups, in­clud­ing Doc­tors With­out Bor­ders, are push­ing back on those NIST changes.

CRS Re­port on NIH


First pub­lished in Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus™ by the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety, the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care prod­ucts. Click here for more in­for­ma­tion.

Im­age: NIH

Health­care Dis­par­i­ties and Sick­le Cell Dis­ease

In the complicated U.S. healthcare system, navigating a serious illness such as cancer or heart disease can be remarkably challenging for patients and caregivers. When that illness is classified as a rare disease, those challenges can become even more acute. And when that rare disease occurs in a population that experiences health disparities, such as people with sickle cell disease (SCD) who are primarily Black and Latino, challenges can become almost insurmountable.

The End­points 11: They've got mad mon­ey and huge am­bi­tions. It's time to go big or go home

These days, selecting a group of private biotechs for the Endpoints 11 spotlight begins with a sprint to get ahead of IPOs and the M&A teams at Big Pharma. I’ve had a couple of faceplants earlier this year, watching some of the biotechs on my short list choose a quick leap onto Nasdaq or into the arms of a buyer.

Vividion, you would have been a great pick for the Endpoints 11. I’m sorry I missed you.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Dave Lennon, former president of Novartis Gene Therapies

So what hap­pened with No­var­tis Gene Ther­a­pies? Here's your an­swer

Over the last couple of days it’s become clear that the gene therapy division at Novartis has quietly undergone a major reorganization. We learned on Monday that Dave Lennon, who had pursued a high-profile role as president of the unit with 1,500 people, had left the pharma giant to take over as CEO of a startup.

Like a lot of the majors, Novartis is an open highway for head hunters, or anyone looking to staff a startup. So that was news but not completely unexpected.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Jacob Van Naarden (Eli Lilly)

Ex­clu­sives: Eli Lil­ly out to crash the megablock­buster PD-(L)1 par­ty with 'dis­rup­tive' pric­ing; re­veals can­cer biotech buy­out

It’s taken 7 years, but Eli Lilly is promising to finally start hammering the small and affluent PD-(L)1 club with a “disruptive” pricing strategy for their checkpoint therapy allied with China’s Innovent.

Lilly in-licensed global rights to sintilimab a year ago, building on the China alliance they have with Innovent. That cost the pharma giant $200 million in cash upfront, which they plan to capitalize on now with a long-awaited plan to bust up the high-price market in lung cancer and other cancers that have created a market worth tens of billions of dollars.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Who are the women su­per­charg­ing bio­phar­ma R&D? Nom­i­nate them for this year's spe­cial re­port

The biotech industry has faced repeated calls to diversify its workforce — and in the last year, those calls got a lot louder. Though women account for just under half of all biotech employees around the world, they occupy very few places in C-suites, and even fewer make it to the helm.

Some companies are listening, according to a recent BIO survey which showed that this year’s companies were 2.5 times more likely to have a diversity and inclusion program compared to last year’s sample. But we still have a long way to go. Women represent just 31% of biotech executives, BIO reported. And those numbers are even more stark for women of color.

FDA+ roundup: Bs­U­FA III ready for show­time, court tells FDA to re-work com­pound­ing plan, new guid­ance up­dates and more

The FDA has now spelled out what exactly will be included in the third iteration of Biosimilar User Fee Act (BsUFA) from 2023 through 2027, which similarly to the prescription drug deal, sets fees that industry has to pay for submitting applications, in exchange for firm timelines that the agency must meet.

This latest deal includes several sweeteners for the biosimilar industry, which has yet to make great strides in the US market, with shorter review timelines for safety labeling updates and updates to add or remove an indication that does not contain efficacy data.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Jean Bennett (Brent N. Clarke/Invision/AP Images)

Lux­tur­na in­ven­tor Jean Ben­nett starts a new gene ther­a­py com­pa­ny to tack­le rare dis­eases left be­hind by phar­ma, VCs

A few years ago Jean Bennett found herself in a surprising place for a woman who invented the first gene therapy ever approved in the United States: No one, it seemed, wanted her work.

Bennett, who designed and co-developed Luxturna, approved in 2018 for a rare form of blindness, had kept building new gene therapies for eye diseases at her University of Pennsylvania lab. But although the results in animals looked promising, pharma companies and investors kept turning down the pedigreed ophthalmology professor.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 117,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

David Meek, new Mirati CEO (Marlene Awaad/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Fresh off Fer­Gene's melt­down, David Meek takes over at Mi­rati with lead KRAS drug rac­ing to an ap­proval

In the insular world of biotech, a spectacular failure can sometimes stay on any executive’s record for a long time. But for David Meek, the man at the helm of FerGene’s recent implosion, two questionable exits made way for what could be an excellent rebound.

Meek, most recently FerGene’s CEO and a past head at Ipsen, has become CEO at Mirati Therapeutics, taking the reins from founding CEO Charles Baum, who will step over into the role of president and head of R&D, according to a release.

Maureen Hillenmeyer, Hexagon Bio CEO

Hexa­gon Bio rais­es $61M to con­tin­ue ef­forts to turn fun­gi in­to drugs

A year after raising a $47 million launch round, the fungi-loving drug hunters at Hexagon Bio have more than doubled their coffers.

Hexagon announced today that it raised another $61 million for its efforts to design cancer and infectious disease drugs based on insights mined from the DNA in millions of species of fungi. The new financing brings Hexagon’s committed funding to over $108 million.