←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 #
thomassmith65 ◴[26 Apr 24 21:21 UTC] No.40174444[source]▶
Was it 'unprofitable' as in 'losing money', or 'unprofitable' as in 'not worth the time'? If it's the latter, I don't have enough information about the rest of J&J to draw any conclusions.
replies(1): >>40174593 #
s1artibartfast ◴[26 Apr 24 21:36 UTC] No.40174593[source]▶
Financially, they are the same.

If you can make more money by not doing X, than doing X, it doesnt matter.

replies(4): >>40174875 #>>40175414 #>>40176392 #>>40176606 #
1. antasvara ◴[27 Apr 24 01:52 UTC] No.40176392{3}[source]▶
To J&J it doesn't matter, but it's a useful number to understand the industry as a whole.

When a pharmaceutical leader says that developing new drugs "isn't profitable," it would be nice to know if that meant "clinical trials don't make as much money as cosmetic drugs" or "clinical trials actively lose us money."