3 ms·
The oft cited $2.6B cost to develop a drug is derived from data from big pharma drug development programs. There is some evidence that startups are 5x more eff
by aaavl2821 7y ago
The oft cited $2.6B cost to develop a drug is derived from data from big pharma drug development programs. There is some evidence that startups are 5x more efficient at developing drugs [0]
The last several years have seen large increases in the number of new FDA approved drugs. The number of FDA approved drugs developed by big pharma is roughly constant, while the number being developed by startups is increasing
AI can certainly help improve R&D productivity, but it is far from the only lever. Better risk management, clinical trial design, advances in protein engineering, larger genomic datasets analyzed with "traditional" statistical methods, better disease models, new therapeutic modalities, etc have all contributed to more efficient R&D productivity over the last decade and will continue to do so. But these don't get much attention outside of the pharma industry
[0] https://www.baybridgebio.com/blog/rd_bigpharma_startup.html https://www.baybridgebio.com/blog/rd_bigpharma_startup.html
- denzil_correa 7y ago> The oft cited $2.6B cost to develop a drug is derived from data from big pharma drug development programs. This number can not be validated as most of the information is not public. It's a self-reported number and should be treated as such. https://www.reuters.com/article/pharmaceuticals-tufts/corrected-tufts-says-average-new-drug-costs-2-6-bln-to-develop-critics-wary-idUSL2N0T82C620141118 https://www.reuters.com/article/pharmaceuticals-tufts/correc...
- aaavl2821 7y agoI don't think that number is too crazy. I did my own back of the envelope analysis and got $1.5B in early stage r&d spend per approved drug discovered by big pharma. If you add a few hundred million for late stage r&d (big pharma spends about the same on late and early stage r&d) and then include cost of capital its in the ballpark of that number