4 ms·

Don't successful drugs also have to pay for the failed trials?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kurthr 2y ago
And also for failed executive pay, and failed lobbying, which are much more expensive. In some cases (like Aduhelm) the marketing started before it was shown to have efficacy... so you have to pay for that very expensive failure too. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/03/08/eli-lilly-alzheimers-donanemab-fda/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/03/08/eli-lilly...
jrsdav 2y ago
This is essentially true. Pharma is incredibly expensive (for lots of different reasons), with R&D taking up a huge portion of those costs. So yes, it's safe to assume that part of the accounting around those published costs in the billions are all of the failed candidates that never even made it to trials (the failure rate varies depending on the area of biology and the type of drug, but it's generally around 9 out of every 10 candidates [1]. By the time you get to trials, that ratio gets even more abysmal). Disclaimer -- I work for Recursion, a company built around this very problem. - [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211383522000521 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221138352... - [2]: https://www.recursion.com https://www.recursion.com
- mc32 2y ago
  R&D takes lots, but so does compliance --for good reason. But compliance costs a lot of money, directly and indirectly. Lots of people, lots of inefficient processes, etc.
- tomrod 2y ago
  Why do the phase testing not prevent overindexing failed projects?
darth_avocado 2y ago
Yes. They also have to pay for the $4.2B the companies spend on lobbying efforts in 2023. https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/lobbyists-spent-record-42-billion-2023-federal-lawmakers-rcna135943# https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/lobbyists-spent-recor...
- ProjectArcturis 2y ago
  Seems like a lot, but in the context of $200B spent on R&D, 2% spent on warding off confiscation is probably money well spent.
- refurb 2y ago
  Uhhh.. $4.2B is all lobbying, not just pharma?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

And also for failed executive pay, and failed lobbying, which are much more expensive. In some cases (like Aduhelm) the marketing started before it was shown to have efficacy... so you have to pay for that very expensive failure too. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/03/08/eli-lilly-alzheimers-donanemab-fda/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/03/08/eli-lilly...

jrsdav 2y ago

This is essentially true. Pharma is incredibly expensive (for lots of different reasons), with R&D taking up a huge portion of those costs. So yes, it's safe to assume that part of the accounting around those published costs in the billions are all of the failed candidates that never even made it to trials (the failure rate varies depending on the area of biology and the type of drug, but it's generally around 9 out of every 10 candidates [1]. By the time you get to trials, that ratio gets even more abysmal). Disclaimer -- I work for Recursion, a company built around this very problem. - [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211383522000521 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221138352... - [2]: https://www.recursion.com https://www.recursion.com

mc32 2y ago
R&D takes lots, but so does compliance --for good reason. But compliance costs a lot of money, directly and indirectly. Lots of people, lots of inefficient processes, etc.
tomrod 2y ago
Why do the phase testing not prevent overindexing failed projects?

darth_avocado 2y ago

Yes. They also have to pay for the $4.2B the companies spend on lobbying efforts in 2023. https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/lobbyists-spent-record-42-billion-2023-federal-lawmakers-rcna135943# https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/lobbyists-spent-recor...

ProjectArcturis 2y ago
Seems like a lot, but in the context of $200B spent on R&D, 2% spent on warding off confiscation is probably money well spent.
refurb 2y ago
Uhhh.. $4.2B is all lobbying, not just pharma?