←back to thread

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

(www.theguardian.com)
275 points swores | 1 comments | 25 Apr 24 12:25 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
tompccs ◴[26 Apr 24 20:48 UTC] No.40174095[source]▶
You can't compare running a clinical trial for a drug targeting a communicable disease in the developing world to trials for treatments of complex diseases in rich countries where you need serology, histopathology and radiological endpoints.

Worth noting as well that J&J have shut down their entire division in communicable diseases because it was so unprofitable for them.

(Source: I work in this industry)

replies(3): >>40174444 #>>40174571 #>>40176425 #
1. s1artibartfast ◴[26 Apr 24 21:34 UTC] No.40174571[source]▶
Just to build on this, many drug and device companies specifically run early trials in the developing world or eastern Europes specifically because the costs are so much lower.

Part of the costs are labor and materials, the majority is regulatory burden. It is a well established financial de-risking activity before spending the hundreds of millions more for a US/EU trial.

Edit for visibility:

The drugs in this trial are all previously developed and approved by other companies, some as early as the 1950s. They ran the trials in Kazakhstan, India, and similar developing countries. They have no manufacturing and supply chain, because they buy commercially available generics off the shelf for pennies.

There is a lot to say about pricing, but the guardian is shamelessly engaging in disinformation.