←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: 0.424s | 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 #
downrightmike ◴[26 Apr 24 20:37 UTC] No.40173982[source]▶
How much of that is Universities doing all the leg work?
replies(1): >>40174164 #
streptomycin ◴[26 Apr 24 20:54 UTC] No.40174164[source]▶
Not much, universities basically never pay for clinical trials.
replies(1): >>40174775 #
1. larkost ◴[26 Apr 24 21:58 UTC] No.40174775[source]▶
This is true, but it should also be pointed out here that Universities are where almost of all the initial research into finding and vetting candidate drugs happens, mostly on grants from the government. On the whole that is enormously costly, and the drug companies only step in to develop the drug once the lab tests are promising.

It used to be that all of the profits went to the drug companies, but more recently Universities have started to claim a portion of the patent royalties, and thus the profits. I believe the first big example of this is the University of Wisconsin's royalties on Warfarin (blood thinner used as medicine in humans, and in large doses as a rat killer).