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

Big Phar­ma's Twit­ter ex­o­dus; Mer­ck wa­gers $1.35B on buy­out; $3.5M gene ther­a­py; and more

Welcome back to Endpoints Weekly, your review of the week’s top biopharma headlines. Want this in your inbox every Saturday morning? Current Endpoints readers can visit their reader profile to add Endpoints Weekly. New to Endpoints? Sign up here.

As you start planning for #JPM23, we hope you will consider joining Endpoints News for our live and virtual events. For those who are celebrating Thanksgiving, we hope you are enjoying the long weekend with loved ones. And if you’re not — we’ll see you next week!

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 154,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Paul Perreault, CSL Behring CEO

CSL lands FDA ap­proval for he­mo­phil­ia B gene ther­a­py, sets $3.5M list price

The FDA has approved the world’s first gene therapy for hemophilia B, ushering into the market a treatment that’s historic in both what it promises to do and how much it will cost.

CSL will be marketing the drug, Hemgenix, at a list price of $3.5 million — which sets a new record for the most expensive single-use gene therapy in the US.

In a statement provided to Endpoints News, the Australian company noted that the current costs of treating people with moderate to severe hemophilia B can be significant over a lifetime. By some estimates, healthcare systems could spend more than $20 million per person.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 154,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Image: Shutterstock

MIT re­searchers re­veal DNA "Paste" tech be­hind lat­est gene edit­ing start­up

MIT scientists have developed a tool that they say can insert large gene sequences where they want in the genome.

In a paper published Thursday in Nature Biotechnology, MIT fellows Omar Abudayyeh, Jonathan Gootenberg and colleagues detail a technology they call PASTE, which they say can potentially be used to insert long strands of DNA and treat genetic diseases caused by many different mutations, such as cystic fibrosis and Leber congenital amaurosis, a rare eye disorder that causes blindness.

Elon Musk (GDA via AP Images)

Biggest drug com­pa­nies halt­ed Twit­ter ad buys af­ter Lil­ly in­sulin spoof

Almost all of the drug industry’s biggest advertisers cut their spending on Twitter to zero or near-zero over the last two weeks amid worries about impersonation of their brands by pranksters and the future of the social media company.

Among 18 of the biggest pharmaceutical advertisers in the US market, 12 cut their Twitter ad spending to nothing for the week beginning Nov. 14, according to Pathmatics, which tracks data on prescription drug ad spending as well as general corporate advertising. The list of drugmakers cutting spending to zero includes Merck, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and others.

Rob Davis, Merck CEO

Up­dat­ed: No Seagen here: 'Do more' means a small $1.35B pur­chase of Ima­go for Mer­ck

Merck is making an acquisition, the Big Pharma announced before Monday’s opening bell. No, Seagen is not entering the fold, as had been speculated for quarters.

Folding under Merck’s wings will be Pfizer-backed Imago BioSciences. For nearly a year, Merck CEO Rob Davis has been saying the pharma giant needs to “do more” on the business development front after its 2021 $11.5 billion acquisition of Acceleron.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 154,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

J&J's Spra­va­to pulls a PhI­II win against Sero­quel XR in treat­ment-re­sis­tant de­pres­sion

A day before Thanksgiving, J&J’s Janssen has a new cut of Phase III Spravato data to be grateful for.

The pharma giant announced on Wednesday that its nasal spray, also known as esketamine, beat extended-release quetiapine, previously sold by AstraZeneca as Seroquel XR, in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Of 676 adults, a significantly higher number of patients on Spravato were able to achieve remission and avoid relapse after 32 weeks, according to J&J.

Dermavant Sciences' first consumer TV ad for its Vtama psoriasis med shows people ready for a new topical treatment.

Roivant’s Der­ma­vant de­buts first-ever TV com­mer­cial for pso­ri­a­sis cream Vta­ma

Dermavant Sciences has been marketing its first product, psoriasis med Vtama, to dermatologists for months, but on Tuesday it rolled out its first consumer campaign. The debut DTC effort including a streaming TV commercial encourages patients to a “Topical Uprising” in a nod to Vtama being a topical cream.

In the new commercial, a swell of people discards scarves and jacket coverings, gathering in the street to converge on a pharmacy to demand a steroid-free prescription. A moment of levity follows when a pharmacist says, “You know you can just talk to your doctor, right?” The gathered crowds collectively says, “Oh.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 154,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

FDA preps for DMD drug gener­ics as Sarep­ta has yet to fin­ish its con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­al

The FDA typically releases guidance to help generic drug manufacturers develop new copycats of small molecule drugs, oftentimes in preparation for a brand name product’s patents or exclusivity to expire.

This week, FDA released such bioequivalence guidance for any generic drugmakers looking to take on Sarepta’s Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) drug Exondys 51 (eteplirsen), even though the drug’s sponsor has yet to convert the accelerated approval to a full approval, showing clinical benefit.

Andrew Phillips, Nexo Therapeutics CEO

Scoop: Ver­sant, NEA launch new biotech helmed by ex-CEO of pro­tein de­grad­er C4 Ther­a­peu­tics

Long-time biotech venture firms Versant and New Enterprise Associates are backing a new startup run by former C4 Therapeutics chief executive Andrew Phillips.

The fledgling biotech has raised at least $30 million so far, according to paperwork filed with the SEC this week. The round could balloon to $60 million.

Phillips, who left protein degradation startup C4 in 2020 to be a managing director at Cormorant Asset Management, is running the show of the new venture as president, the SEC filing outlines. He also served as interim CEO of Cormorant-backed and Hansoh Pharmaceutical-partnered Blossom Bioscience last year.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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