It doesn’t (have to) cost billions to bring a (successful) drug to market.
And if you pick a single successful example that was discovered in academia, was spun out into a small focussed biotech, and was in a disease area that didn’t require large or multiple studies to make it to market, you’ll have your anecdote to prove your point.
Except… you’d be ignoring the costs of the 90% of drugs that fail in phase 1. You’d be ignoring the huge amount spent on discovery across the industry that never leads to a successful candidate.
Drug discovery and development is difficult because, for all of our clever science, it’s still essentially serendipitous and random. And we’ve not yet figured out how to make a production line out of something that’s random, try as we might. And it’s expensive because of the failures as well as the cost associated with success.
I am perfectly aware that this is the reason they blame for the insane costs - “we have to test so many drugs!”
Yet you seem to have assumed I’m oblivious to the reality when I’ve already pressed I’ve been in the deep end and am aware.
I’ve already given an explanation on why I don’t agree with “its still serendipitous and random” - the people working on it are not smart enough and are more interested in stoking egos and careers than doing real science, even if they’re capable of doing so.
“90% of the drugs fail in phase I” - why are you telling me that when I’ve already given an explanation on why that is so - we don’t have good preclinical models that correlate with drug effectiveness - is it that you didn’t understand what I wrote, or are also neck deep in this cultural quagmire you refuse to acknowledge it?
No need for anger - I think we're mostly in (violent) agreement here. :)
Maybe the one area we would significantly disagree is that I don't think it's simply that "the people working on it are not smart enough and are more interested in stoking egos and careers than doing real science".
Honestly, I've had discussions with so many mid-level smart trusted colleagues who always think that the higher-ups are making stupid decisions, and they'd do better. They're right that some of the decisions might be stupid (and you're probably right about "stoking egos and careers") some of the time, but people are promoted, decision-makers come and go, and the decisions (and failure rates) don't really improve. I (think I) see it for what it is, and agree that we lack meaningfully informative pre-clinical models, but I'm also comfortable to acknowledge the weaknesses of the system and be honest that I don't have all of the answers. At the moment, it's a heinously inefficient crap-shoot, but it's the best we've so far come up with.
But, prove me wrong. There are likely countless molecules that have been discarded that have therapeutic benefit waiting to be realised. (I don't mean to sound facetious here but) If you can do better, and are smarter than and will make better decisions than everyone else in the industry, you'll be a billionaire in short order, as this is literally the golden ticket in this industry that everyone else is missing.
I would love to prove my point by actually becoming a billionaire, but my point is that the system is stacked against folks like me. Gotta have a nature paper to get a job in Genentech fresh out of PhD. Who gets nature papers? People who join labs that already publish nature papers. Who gets to join there? Valedictorian Who undergrad in top schools. Apparently the odds are stacked the moment you slack off in eigth grade lol.
I have done my PhD, I need to take a break to actually take care of my family and immigration. I hope to get back to this field at some point, in my own terms, and see if I can succeed. If it works, it works! If not Who cares right! Let's see.
Right. You can't just choose to run the successful clinical trials anymore than you can choose to only buy stocks that will go up on wall street. you have to run various clinical trials for a drug, and they fail. a lot. that very very expensive with no payoff. the successes have to be so phenomenally profitable that they cover the costs of all the failures. So real change would come from making the costs of those failures go away, without being able to cheat the system. The amount of medicine is believed to work, but is unpatentable, and thus doesn't have the profit motive to be pushed through clinical trials is a huge black badge on the American version of capitalism as being the best way we can organize society for the advancement of science and technology.
All of these things also apply to startups. And creates a VC groupthink of "portfolio theory" that necessitates huge (10,000x) returns, which costs the public a lot of viable small/medium enterprises that are not victims of the perverse incentives.
I wonder if the "optimal" theory is portfolio in this case, or if there is a new generation of VC/pharma investors who want a higher probability at a lower return.
> It doesn’t (have to) cost billions to bring a (successful) drug to market
> you’d be ignoring the costs of the 90% of drugs that fail in phase 1
It depends on what you call "bringing a drug to market".
_________________
* Phase I costs little, around $1M during the trial, and involves only a small group of participants (one or two dozen people), so it's not multi-center and it is manageable by a few people at a biotech. The problem is that most phase I trials fail, but this is not an issue of cost, it's an issue of the way it is decided as explained by ramraj07, another commenter.
Too often it is started on a hunch without solid pre-clinical data, sometimes it is because the drug was tested and failed in another disease and the managers "pivoted" to a new disease because then it costs little to try again, sometimes it's just a "weird IP/financial trick" where you combine an existing drug and an unrelated drug. Then you know you have a relatively efficacious drug, no need for toxicity studies and you can patent it.
On the contrary, many trials could be done on drugs with good pre-clinical data, but that does not happen because it would be hard to patent.
_________________
* A phase III costs around $25M for one or two hundred participants during the trial [0]. It lasts 6 months at most.
Some publications cite much higher numbers (~$1G), but this does not make sense as drugs are often developed by biotechs (startups, in other words) with only a few million in their pockets.
Another cost inflationary cause is subcontracting to CROs, as most biotechs do not have the manpower, knowledge and business connections to conduct the trial.
_________________
* Once a drug receives commercialization authorization, a major company usually buys the rights and then starts the marketing phase. This starts with teaching doctors on how to prescribe and administer the drug. It means publishing articles in the mainstream medical press, inviting doctors to conferences and workshops, and paying medical sales representatives.
It is costly, this is probably where are spend the ~$500M but for me, this is not drug development costs, it's just marketing costs.
I'm sorry, but for industry-sponsored trials your figures are off by up to an order of magnitude, despite the numbers in the (18 year old) reference.
Phase I: a small biotech I know of in oncology has phase I costs in the order of $500,000 per patient; this is a higher-end cost, due to their sites being in the US (more expensive than Europe) and because as a small biotech they're had to outsource virtually every aspect of running the trial. In big pharma, per-patient costs were more like $70-100k per patient, but this was just the pure money paid patient (to the site, and external costs like drug supply and shipping) and ignored the cost of laboratory, clinical, operations, and data management work that was being done in house. All told, it would typically be hard to get even a phase I study completed for less than 10x your estimate, and this is before you consider any additional recruitment needed between dose escalation and phase III.
Phase III: again it depends on many factors, but in big pharma a trial cost of $100-200k per patient was again not unreasonable, and typical phase III trials where you're comparing to a meaningful established medicine are larger than 100-200 patients. A biotech I know of is unable to run a phase III for a promising drug without finding a partner to support the majority of the cost (which is >100m EUR in oncology) and they're not wasting money.
---
A less anecdotal approach is to consider the total R&D costs of companies across a given timescale, and divide by the number of successes. It's a pretty old reference too, but Matthew Herper did this in 2013. [0] Yes, there were some outliers with low costs, but you'd have to understand the details for context. The typical costs were in the hunderes of millions to billions per successful drug.
And if you pick a single successful example that was discovered in academia, was spun out into a small focussed biotech, and was in a disease area that didn’t require large or multiple studies to make it to market, you’ll have your anecdote to prove your point.
Except… you’d be ignoring the costs of the 90% of drugs that fail in phase 1. You’d be ignoring the huge amount spent on discovery across the industry that never leads to a successful candidate.
Drug discovery and development is difficult because, for all of our clever science, it’s still essentially serendipitous and random. And we’ve not yet figured out how to make a production line out of something that’s random, try as we might. And it’s expensive because of the failures as well as the cost associated with success.