4 ms·

Welcome to pharmaceuticals in general (and many of the biggest biotech companies, come to think of it). I didn't find the exact number in a cursory search, but

by 09bjb 8y ago

Welcome to pharmaceuticals in general (and many of the biggest biotech companies, come to think of it). I didn't find the exact number in a cursory search, but I've read that a fairly preposterous proportion of the drugs that have ever been produced are (unpatentable) plant molecules that were deliberately reverse-engineered and tweaked for patentability.

randomacct3847 8y ago
It’s a sad joke. If the gov’t wants to fix drug prices then figure out how to stop companies from gaming the system like this.
- loeg 8y ago
  It could either bring drugs to market itself, negotiate for all consumers (single payer), or loosen FDA regulations around drug safety or efficacy trials. The status quo is that selling a drug is extremely expensive even when if you know a priori it is safe and effective, so companies must use the patent to seek high rents to recoup their costs (as well as cover R&D on other drugs, which may not pan out).
  - cheerlessbog 8y ago
    Yet prices are sufficiently high that it is a surprisingly profitable industry. It is also worth bearing in mind that the government find a large share of drug development. [1] [1] "pharmaceutical and biotechnology sales revenue increased from $534 billion to $775 billion between 2006 and 2015.... Drug industry spending for research and development increased from $82 billion in 2008 to $89 billion in 2014" (I assume there are other costs so one cannot simply divide to get gross profit but it seems illustrative) https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-18-40 https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-18-40
    - mirimir 8y ago
      The pharmaceutical industry inflates costs of drug development. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/upshot/calculating-the-real-costs-of-developing-a-new-drug.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/upshot/calculating-the-re...
      - aaavl2821 8y ago
        The costs may be inflated but the actual costs are probably not that different than tufts. Several other studies suggest pharma is getting a return on its r&d investment of under 5% (a Deloitte and McKinsey study as well as a Novartis one). Pharma is also cutting internal r&d because they can't get a return. They buy drugs from startups instead which does not show up in the profit and loss statements In 2018 only like 12% of new FDA approved drugs were developed by big pharma. 63% were developed by small companies. A negligible amount / zero were developed by universities The $161M figure cited in that nytimes study is not at all representative because most early stage r&d is done outside of big pharma, and then big pharma buys the drugs and markets them If drug research was profitable pharma would be doing more of it, not less
    - aaavl2821 8y ago
      Analyses like that are misleading because most of the industry's revenues and profits are concentrated with a few firms. The vast majority of biotech and pharma companies are not profitable and never aim to become profitable -- rather they just do r&d and then sell drugs to big pharma once some of the clinical risk is taken out In 2018 only like 12% of new FDA approved drugs were developed by big pharma. 63% were developed by small companies. A negligible amount were discovered by universities alone Pharma acquired these drugs from startups through M&A which doesn't show up in profit and loss statements. It shows up on the balance sheet That $84B r&d figure seems very low. The top 15 pharma companies spend something like $75B a year in r&d. VC backed startups spend like $10-15B. Then all the firms in between account for the majority of spending. Don't remember the source but I think total global pharma r&d is like $200B
aaavl2821 8y ago
I'd be interested in seeing data on that, as I have never heard that argument A cursory look at the top selling drugs of all time doesn't appear to show any plant derived drugs [0]. Obviously this does not disprove your statement but its the quickest heuristic i could think of [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_selling_pharmaceutical_products https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_selling_pharma...
- loeg 8y ago
  That list is sorted by price; i.e., it will bias towards recent patents on complicated drugs. OP's statement was about sheer number of patented drugs. I don't know that OP's statement was accurate, but the wikipedia link doesn't really refute or confirm the idea.
refurb 8y ago
The list of drugs that have been derived from plant sources is actually quite low. And just because it’s present in a plant doesn’t mean it can be drugged. It could have a short half life, high toxicity, etc., so derivatives are made to optimize it’s action. Finally, even if a patent can’t be secured, the first version of a drug is given exclusivity by the FDA - they won’t approve another version up to 7 years (orphan drugs).

by 09bjb 8y ago

randomacct3847 8y ago

It’s a sad joke. If the gov’t wants to fix drug prices then figure out how to stop companies from gaming the system like this.

loeg 8y ago
It could either bring drugs to market itself, negotiate for all consumers (single payer), or loosen FDA regulations around drug safety or efficacy trials. The status quo is that selling a drug is extremely expensive even when if you know a priori it is safe and effective, so companies must use the patent to seek high rents to recoup their costs (as well as cover R&D on other drugs, which may not pan out).
- cheerlessbog 8y ago
  Yet prices are sufficiently high that it is a surprisingly profitable industry. It is also worth bearing in mind that the government find a large share of drug development. [1] [1] "pharmaceutical and biotechnology sales revenue increased from $534 billion to $775 billion between 2006 and 2015.... Drug industry spending for research and development increased from $82 billion in 2008 to $89 billion in 2014" (I assume there are other costs so one cannot simply divide to get gross profit but it seems illustrative) https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-18-40 https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-18-40
  - mirimir 8y ago
    The pharmaceutical industry inflates costs of drug development. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/upshot/calculating-the-real-costs-of-developing-a-new-drug.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/upshot/calculating-the-re...
    - aaavl2821 8y ago
      The costs may be inflated but the actual costs are probably not that different than tufts. Several other studies suggest pharma is getting a return on its r&d investment of under 5% (a Deloitte and McKinsey study as well as a Novartis one). Pharma is also cutting internal r&d because they can't get a return. They buy drugs from startups instead which does not show up in the profit and loss statements In 2018 only like 12% of new FDA approved drugs were developed by big pharma. 63% were developed by small companies. A negligible amount / zero were developed by universities The $161M figure cited in that nytimes study is not at all representative because most early stage r&d is done outside of big pharma, and then big pharma buys the drugs and markets them If drug research was profitable pharma would be doing more of it, not less
  - aaavl2821 8y ago
    Analyses like that are misleading because most of the industry's revenues and profits are concentrated with a few firms. The vast majority of biotech and pharma companies are not profitable and never aim to become profitable -- rather they just do r&d and then sell drugs to big pharma once some of the clinical risk is taken out In 2018 only like 12% of new FDA approved drugs were developed by big pharma. 63% were developed by small companies. A negligible amount were discovered by universities alone Pharma acquired these drugs from startups through M&A which doesn't show up in profit and loss statements. It shows up on the balance sheet That $84B r&d figure seems very low. The top 15 pharma companies spend something like $75B a year in r&d. VC backed startups spend like $10-15B. Then all the firms in between account for the majority of spending. Don't remember the source but I think total global pharma r&d is like $200B

aaavl2821 8y ago

I'd be interested in seeing data on that, as I have never heard that argument A cursory look at the top selling drugs of all time doesn't appear to show any plant derived drugs [0]. Obviously this does not disprove your statement but its the quickest heuristic i could think of [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_selling_pharmaceutical_products https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_selling_pharma...

loeg 8y ago
That list is sorted by price; i.e., it will bias towards recent patents on complicated drugs. OP's statement was about sheer number of patented drugs. I don't know that OP's statement was accurate, but the wikipedia link doesn't really refute or confirm the idea.

refurb 8y ago

The list of drugs that have been derived from plant sources is actually quite low. And just because it’s present in a plant doesn’t mean it can be drugged. It could have a short half life, high toxicity, etc., so derivatives are made to optimize it’s action. Finally, even if a patent can’t be secured, the first version of a drug is given exclusivity by the FDA - they won’t approve another version up to 7 years (orphan drugs).