←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
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 #
1. refurb ◴[27 Apr 24 02:24 UTC] No.40176577[source]▶
> The average cost of phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials across therapeutic areas is around $4, 13, and 20 million respectively.

Average cost of a phase 3 trial is a terrible representation of costs.

Not all phase 3 trials are equal. For something like TB, the trial can be relatively small (huundreds of patients), and short (months). For something like heart disease drugs, the trials might be massive (tends of thousands of patients) and very long (years).

Anyone can call a CRO (contract research organization) up and ask what they charged for phase 3 trials. Last I talked to them it was ~$15,000/patient/year.

It's pretty easy to do the math based on that. A heart disease drug with 10,000 patients lasting 3 years will cost $450M.