←back to thread

Cost of developing new drugs may be lower than industry claims: trial

(www.theguardian.com)
275 points swores | 2 comments | 25 Apr 24 12:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.018s | source
Show context
streptomycin ◴[26 Apr 24 19:58 UTC] No.40173514[source]▶
Its own bill for landmark trials of a four-drug combination treatment for drug-resistant tuberculosis came to €34m (£29m).

Okay, how does that compare to what pharma companies spend? The article cites some unrelated numbers, doesn't actually compare.

A quick Google search says:

The average cost of phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials across therapeutic areas is around $4, 13, and 20 million respectively.

So... not really that different? What's the big deal here?

replies(5): >>40173613 #>>40173658 #>>40173916 #>>40173982 #>>40176577 #
Retric ◴[26 Apr 24 20:10 UTC] No.40173658[source]▶
The S.

“Its own bill for landmark trialS of a four-drug combination treatment for drug-resistant tuberculosis came to €34m (£29m)”

You’re also looking at the cost from from 2015 to 2016 where a single phase 3 trial was already 20m and $41,117 per patient. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clinical-trial-budget-example...

replies(2): >>40173870 #>>40175188 #
1. nickff ◴[26 Apr 24 20:28 UTC] No.40173870[source]▶
I don’t understand the difference you’re trying to point out. You’re both talking about the total cost for a testing a combination of drugs which required multiple phases, each of which is deemed a different trial. Am I wrong? What difference are you trying to highlight with the “s”?
replies(1): >>40174374 #
2. Retric ◴[26 Apr 24 21:14 UTC] No.40174374[source]▶
Each of those different phases would have cost ~26 million (30% inflation on 2015 prices).