←back to thread

275 points swores | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ano-ther ◴[] No.40173971[source]
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-...

replies(2): >>40174096 #>>40174285 #
1. javiramos ◴[] No.40174285[source]
I would love to know the shortcut to developing a commercially viable drug for $34M.
replies(2): >>40174686 #>>40182059 #
2. s1artibartfast ◴[] No.40174686[source]
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

replies(1): >>40175896 #
3. karmajunkie ◴[] No.40175896[source]
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.
replies(1): >>40176098 #
4. s1artibartfast ◴[] No.40176098{3}[source]
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.

5. LorenPechtel ◴[] No.40182059[source]
Combo of existing drugs. They're looking at a test of whether a particular cocktail works, the drugs themselves were tested long ago.