(www.theguardian.com)

275 points swores | 1 comments | 25 Apr 24 12:25 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #

throwaway35777 ◴[26 Apr 24 20:06 UTC] No.40173613[source]▶

>>40173514 #

Don't successful drugs also have to pay for the failed trials?

replies(4): >>40173936 #>>40173983 #>>40173995 #>>40174204 #

1. kurthr ◴[26 Apr 24 20:37 UTC] No.40173983[source]▶

>>40173613 #

And also for failed executive pay, and failed lobbying, which are much more expensive. In some cases (like Aduhelm) the marketing started before it was shown to have efficacy... so you have to pay for that very expensive failure too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/03/08/eli-lilly...

↑

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