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

I'd be eager to learn more, but it seems that they have only published the topline figures [1] and some of their methodology [2]. Details will follow in a journal.

Perhaps worth noting that development cost account for more than the phase 2-3 studies and that cost are lower for combinations of known drugs. But yes, 34 million is a lot less than 3 billion.

[1] https://msfaccess.org/precedent-setting-move-towards-drug-de...

> *Total costs were €33.9 million. While the topline results were presented at the WHO PPRI conference, the full detailed costs of the clinical trial have been submitted for a peer-review publication to a journal. In the full publication, the costs are broken down into 27 cost categories, by year, and by trial site, in order to offer a high level of transparency.

[2] https://msfaccess.org/transparency-core-clinical-trial-cost-...

If the authors were correct, they would have investors throwing money at them, and they would be competing with the existing drug companies, no? They are the second or third most profitable businesses in the world.

Who would write a research paper instead of founding drug companies if they had the secret sauce to cutting expenses that drastically.

I would love to know the shortcut to developing a commercially viable drug for $34M.

If I understand the trial[1] correctly, the "shortcut" is running a trial with small molecule drugs that were invented 90-20 years ago, commercially developed by someone else, and are now off or going off patent.

Shameless propaganda from the guardian to put this in contrast with new biologic molecules.

https://endtb.org/endtb-clinical-trial-results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedaquiline

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delamanid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clofazimine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linezolid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinolone_antibiotic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrazinamide#History

if you’re trying to get an idea of what it actually costs to run a trial, eliminating the cost of drug development seems like exactly the thing to do.

sure, but the industry numbers the guardian compares to are "all-in". Molecular science, bio-reactors, regulatory testing, quality control, failed drugs, lawsuits, ect.

It is a fundamentally bogus apples to oranges comparison, never mind the fact that the trial was run in Kazakhstan opposed the the USA.

Combo of existing drugs. They're looking at a test of whether a particular cocktail works, the drugs themselves were tested long ago.