ArticlePDF Available

Estimating the Cost of New Drug Development: Is It Really $802 Million?

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

This paper replicates the drug development cost estimates of Joseph DiMasi and colleagues ("The Price of Innovation"), using their published cost estimates along with information on success rates and durations from a publicly available data set. For drugs entering human clinical trials for the first time between 1989 and 2002, the paper estimated the cost per new drug to be 868 million dollars. However, our estimates vary from around 500 million dollars to more than 2,000 million dollars, depending on the therapy or the developing firm.
No caption available
… 
Content may be subject to copyright.
HEALTH ECONOMICS
Health Econ. (2009)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hec.1454
SPENDING ON NEW DRUG DEVELOPMENT
1
CHRISTOPHER PAUL ADAMS
a,
and VAN VU BRANTNER
b
a
Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC, USA
b
Global Consumer & Small Business Banking, Bank of America, Charlotte, NC, USA
SUMMARY
This paper replicates DiMasi et al.(J.Health Econ. 2003; 22: 151–185; Drug Inf.J. 2004; 38: 211–223) estimates of
expenditure on new drug development using publicly available data. The paper estimates that average expenditure
on drugs in human clinical trials is around $27m per year, with $17m per year on drugs in Phase I, $34m on drugs in
Phase II and $27m per year on drugs in Phase III of the human clinical trials. The paper’s estimated expenditure on
new drug development is somewhat greater than suggested by the survey results presented in DiMasi et al.
(J. Health Econ. 2003; 22: 151–185; Drug Inf. J. 2004; 38: 211–223). The paper combines a 12-year panel of research
and development expenditure for 183 publicly traded firms in the pharmaceutical industry with panel of drugs in
human clinical trials for each firm over the same period. The paper estimates drug expenditure by estimating the
relationship between research and development expenditure and the number of drugs in development for 1682
company/years (183 firms multiplied by the number of years for which we have financial and drug development
information). The paper also estimates expenditure on drugs in various therapeutic categories. Copyright r2009
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 14 May 2007; Revised 24 November 2008; Accepted 5 January 2009
KEY WORDS: pharmaceuticals; drug development
1. INTRODUCTION
DiMasi et al. (2003, 2004) estimate the cost of new drug development for all drugs and for drugs in
certain therapeutic categories, respectively. The authors estimate the average cost of new drug
development to be $802m per new drug. This number has become a central part of the policy debates on
numerous issues regarding the pharmaceutical industry including the Medicare Prescription Drug Act,
drug importation, generic entry and vaccine development. Drug companies argue the high cost of drug
development justifies the high prices paid by governments, insurers and customers. Given the
importance of the $802m number to the debate it is important to know whether it is correct and what it
means.
DiMasi et al. (2003) calculate the cost of new drug development with data from two sources. The
authors survey 10 large pharmaceutical firms and ask those firms to report the expenditure in human
clinical trials for 68 drugs chosen at random from the Tuft’s drug development database called the
CSDD. The authors then use information on average success rates and successful durations from the
CSDD data to calculate the cost of bringing a new drug to market. Recently, Light and Warburton
(2005) point out numerous problems with DiMasi et al. (2003). In particular, because ‘cost data used
1
The authors are not aware of any potential conflicts that may bias their work. As far as the authors are aware, the study raises no
ethical issues.
*Correspondence to: Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission, 601 New Jersey Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580,
USA. E-mail: cadams@ftc.gov
Copyright r2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
was proprietary and confidential, readers cannot know how each company collected its data, or what
was counted as research costs, and no independent verification of the accuracy of the information is
possible’ (p. 1031). This paper provides an independent verification of the survey cost data by using an
alternative publicly available data source on research and development expenditure. Adams and
Brantner (2006) verify the second part of DiMasi et al. (2003) paper by using publicly available data to
estimate success rates and average successful durations.
By comparing aggregate annual expenditure on research and development across firms and over time
to the number of drugs in human clinical trials for each firm and each year, we can determine the
‘marginal expenditure’ on an additional drug in development. If Drug Firm A spends an additional
$50m in 1992 relative to 1991 but in 1992 Drug Firm A has two additional drugs in development we
argue this provides an estimate of average annual expenditure by Drug Firm A, i.e. $25m per drug per
year. Similarly, if Drug Firm B spends $100m more than Drug Firm A in 1992 but Drug Firm B has an
additional four drugs in development in 1992, then we estimate drug expenditure to be $25m per drug
per year. Note that this is an estimate of the correlation between expenditure and the number of drugs in
development. We are not attempting to estimate the impact of an additional dollar of expenditure on
the number of drugs in development or the impact of additional drug on the amount of expenditure.
There are a number of advantages to this approach. First, we are using publicly available data so
our results can be verified by other researchers. Second, we are using data from 183 publicly traded
firms rather than 10 firms selected by the study’s authors. Our selection criteria is that the firms
have research and development expenditure information in the CompuStat data base, be in the
pharmaceutical industry (see Danzon et al., 2004) and have drugs in the Pharmaprojects data set
(see Adams and Brantner, 2006). These firms range in size from 100 employees to almost 180 000
employees with sales ranging from $2m annually to almost $45b annually. Third, we are using
contemporaneous reports of research and development expenditure where the reports are scrutinized by
both the market and the SEC. In their comment on DiMasi et al. (2003), Light and Warburton (2005)
argue that
considering the clear interest of pharmaceutical companies in higher (rather than lower) estimates of
drug development costs, and sampled firms’ likely awareness of the intended use of the survey data, it
is not unlikely that companies would deliberately and systematically overstate costs in their survey
responses (p. 1031).
We argue that such biases are less likely here given the large number of firms and the checks on the
reports including audits.
Of course there are also serious concerns about the approach we use here. First, the data are
aggregate research and development expenditure. Those not only include expenditure on drugs in
human clinical trials but also include development expenditure on drugs yet to reach trials. To identify
the amount spent in human clinical trials we must infer the information from cross sectional and time-
series variation in expenditure that is associated with variation in the number of drugs in development.
Such variation may lead to spurious estimates. For example, if one firm specializes in anti-infective
drugs and we compare the specialty firm’s expenditure on anti-infective drugs to that of a firm that has
just one or two anti-infective drugs, we may estimate that expenditure on the extra drug as being small.
This low estimate may be due savings from specialization rather than an accurate measure of the cost of
adding another anti-infective drug.
Second, we are estimating changes for the ‘marginal drug’, which may be more expensive than the
average drug.
2
The relationship between expenditure on the marginal drug and expenditure on the
average drug depends on what assumption the reader is willing to make regarding how expenditure per
2
Thanks to Eric Durbin for pointing this out.
C. P. ADAMS AND V. V. BRANTNER
Copyright r2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Health Econ. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hec
drug changes with the number of drugs. If expenditure per drug is constant then the marginal and the
average are the same. On the other hand, if expenditure per drug is increasing with the number of drugs
in development then marginal expenditure will be higher than average expenditure. A number of papers
suggest that there may be economies of scale or scope in drug development (Cockburn and Henderson,
1996, 2001; Danzon et al., 2004). If there are economies of scale then we would expect marginal
expenditure to be less than average expenditure.
3
Note that marginal expenditure may be a more useful
measure for determining the incentive effects of policy changes.
Third, we use Pharmaprojects’ definition of a ‘drug development project’ and assign the drug to the
‘originator’. In general, this definition corresponds to a new patented molecular entity. In the main
part of the analysis we drop drugs that are new formulations of existing drugs (i.e. an extended
release version of an existing drug). The analysis does not account for the fact that the drug
development project is part of a joint venture (and thus expenditure is spread across multiple firms) or is
being developed by an altogether different firm (and our method is assigning the drug project to the
wrong firm).
4
Such mis-measurement may bias our estimates downward. It should be noted that our
counts of drugs in the different phases are measuring the development associated with the originating
firm.
In order to have a number that is comparable to DiMasi et al.’s (2003) average expenditure over the
sample period, we control for differences between firms and differences over time. We attempt to
control for some cross-sectional variation by conditioning on net sales. If for example, larger firms
spend more on drug development projects than smaller firms then net sales should control for this
variation. Similarly, if firms are spending more on drug development projects at the end of the period
than at the beginning then our controls for time will provide a better sense of the average expenditure
per project during the period. Note that identification of spending per drugs is coming to some extent
from the fact that larger firms have more drugs and that there are more drugs over time in the database.
The controls attempt to separately identify the effect of having another drug in human clinical trials
from the effect of being large or later in time.
DiMasi et al. (2003) uses a similar approach to verify their own estimates. The authors use firm level
R&D expenditure reported by PhRMA and estimate lagged expenditure on firm level counts of
approved drugs. The authors estimate average expenditure per approved drug to be between $354m and
$558m. These numbers are similar to their estimate of $403m using the survey data. Other researchers
have simply divided aggregate R&D expenditure by the total number of approvals per year. The
concern with these approaches is that less than one in four drugs in human clinical trials actually make it
to the market and the process can take between 6 and 12 years with substantial variation across drugs
(Adams and Brantner, 2003).
The rest of the paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 discusses the data used in this study and provides
some background information on new drug development. Section 3 presents the results. Section 4
concludes.
2. DATA AND BACKGROUND
This paper combines data from two data sources. Information on each firm’s research and development
expenditure comes from the Standard Poor’s CompuStat Industrial file and Global Vantage Industrial
Commercial file used by Danzon et al. (2004).
5
This data set provides financial information on publicly
traded drug companies including net sales, employment and expenditure on research and development.
3
To the extent one is concerned that large firms may have lower (or higher) expenditure per drug than smaller firms, some of this
variation is accounted for in the analysis through conditioning on sales revenue.
4
Danzon et al. (2005) analyze joint ventures.
5
All monetary values are in 1999 dollars using the domestic manufacturing Producer Price Index.
SPENDING ON NEW DRUG DEVELOPMENT
Copyright r2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Health Econ. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hec
Information on drugs in development comes from a Pharmaprojects data set used by Adams and
Brantner (2006) and Abrantes-Metz et al. (2005). This data set uses public information to track drugs
through the development process, providing information on the length of time in different phase as well
as when and if drugs completed a development phase. The two data sets overlap for the years
1989–2001. The data sets are matched using the name of the pharmaceutical firm.
6
Pharmaprojects
updates its information on the firms developing each drug after a merger, so we used text searches of the
database and searches of a related data set called the Manufacturing Index to determine the ownership
of drugs over time.
7
According to Danzon et al. (2004) there are 383 firms in their original data. Once we match these
firms to firms in the Pharmaprojects data we are left with 183 firms. It is not clear exactly why there are
firms that do not match. The two data sets do not exactly overlap in time and that may explain some of
it. Another explanation is that the Pharmaprojects does not capture name changes or mergers among
smaller firms (see footnote 7). Table I presents some basic summary statistics for this sample of firm/
year combinations. Table I shows there are an average of four drugs in development for each firm for
each year 1989–2001. Note this measure is not a very good measure of the stock of drugs in development
because we only observe drugs entering one of the stages of human clinical trials after 1989. In the
average firm/year $264m is spent on research and development, $2355m is made in sales and there are
11 000 employees. Note that medians are substantially lower than the means suggesting that the
distributions are all skewed toward zero.
Figures 1–3 present the distribution of the number of drugs in human clinical trials per firm/year, the
amount of R&D expenditure per firm/year, and a scatter plot of the two, respectively. The first two
figures show that the distributions of drugs and expenditures are heavily skewed to zero. The third
figure seems to show a positive correlation between the amount of R&D expenditure per firm per year
and the number of drugs in development per firm per year.
Figure 4 presents a summary of the research and development process for new drugs. The first
stage of drug discovery is commonly called ‘preclinical development’. In this stage pharmaceutical
firms analyze thousands of drugs to determine whether one may have an affect on a disease or
condition. As candidates are discovered these drugs are tested on animals to determine whether the
drug may be safe and effective in human beings. It is estimated that drugs spend over 4 years in
preclinical testing. DiMasi et al. (2003) do not have direct survey information on preclinical expenditure
because pharmaceutical firms do not track preclinical expenditure by particular drug candidates.
Given this and given that the Pharmaprojects data are based on public information and are not very
reliable regarding drugs in preclinical development, we do not estimate expenditure on preclinical
development.
After preclinical development the sponsoring firm applies for an investigation new drug application
(IND) with the FDA in order to test the candidate in humans.
8
There are three steps to human clinical
Table I. Firm/year summary statistics
Variable Obs Mean Median Std. Dev. Max
Number of drugs 2245 4 2 6 45
R&D expenditure ($m) 1682 264 37 551 4678
Net sales ($m) 1701 2355 110 5438 44 611
Employees (’000) 1537 11 1 25 179
6
This matching was done by hand in order for it to be as accurate as possible.
7
This was done for all mergers involving firms in the Forbes’ top 20 of pharmaceutical industry over the period as well as any other
major mergers in the pharmaceutical industry.
8
If the firm wants to eventually market the drug in the US the firm must apply for an IND prior to undertaking human trials. That
said, there are exceptions.
C. P. ADAMS AND V. V. BRANTNER
Copyright r2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Health Econ. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hec
trials. In Phase I, the drug is tested for safety on a small group (e.g. 20) of healthy volunteers. Phase II
tests concentrate on safety but the test is on a larger group of patients with the condition (e.g. 200).
Phase III are the large efficacy trials with upwards of 3,000 patients participating. Once the trials are
completed the results of all three stages are presented to the FDA in the form of a new drug application
(NDA).
Table II presents some basic summary statistics on the drugs owned by the firms in the sample. The
first set of three rows show the mean length in months of successful durations. The second set of three
Figure 1. Drugs in development
Figure 2. Annual R&D expenditure
SPENDING ON NEW DRUG DEVELOPMENT
Copyright r2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Health Econ. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hec
Figure 3. R&D expenditure by drugs in development
Figure 4. CDER chart of the development process
Table II. Summary statistics for drugs
Obs Mean
Duration (months)
Phase I 235 16.58
Phase II 144 30.65
Phase III 130 27.15
Success (frequency)
Phase I 314 0.75
Phase II 302 0.48
Phase III 184 0.71
C. P. ADAMS AND V. V. BRANTNER
Copyright r2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Health Econ. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hec
rows shows the frequency with which drugs successfully complete the phase. The table shows that these
drugs seem to be fairly representative (see Adams and Brantner, 2006; DiMasi et al., 2003). Successful
durations vary by a month or two and success rates vary by a few percentage points of those reported in
Adams and Brantner (2006).
3. RESULTS
3.1. Mean expenditure estimates
Table III presents regression results for the amount of research and development expenditure on the
number of drugs in human clinical trials. There are six regressions reported in the table. First are the
basic regressions on the number of drugs in human clinical trials then on the number of drugs in each of
the three phases of development. These regressions are then repeated adding measures of time and firm
characteristics. All results report robust standard errors clustering on firm name. The number of drugs
is the number of drugs in development for each firm/year combination. Note that ‘new formulations’ of
existing drugs are not included in the count variable.
9
This is done in order to make the estimates closer
to DiMasi et al. (2003) estimate for new molecular entities.
10
The variable time is simply the number of
years from 1988. The variable ‘sales’ is the amount of net sales for each firm/year. The time and sales
variables allow the analysis to capture changes in expenditure over the time period and across firms,
where ‘sales’ is probably best thought of a measure of firm size.
Table III shows that average expenditure per drug in human clinical trials is between $74m and $27m
per year.
11
Once we include controls for time and firm characteristics, the results suggest that the
average expenditure on drugs across all three phases of development is approximately $27m per year.
This estimate is quite precise and is statistically different from zero at traditional levels. If sales are not
accounted for then Phase I expenditure is estimated to be $81m per year, $68m for drugs in Phase II and
$77m for drugs in Phase III. Once time and sales are accounted for, these estimates fall to $16m, $34m
and $27m respectively.
12
The Phase II and III expenditures are estimated precisely and are statistically
different from zero. The Phase I estimate is less precisely estimated and 0 lies within the traditional
confidence interval.
How do these results compare to the estimates of expenditure in DiMasi et al. (2003)? We estimate
the average annual expenditure on drugs in all three phases of human clinical trials is $27m. If we take
DiMasi et al. (2003) estimates of expenditure for each phase of $15m, $24m and $86m for Phases I, II
and III, respectively, and weight them proportionally to the time spent in development and the
probability of being in each of the phases then we have the appropriate comparison.
13
This
transformation gives an estimate of annual expenditure of $21m.
14
Our estimate is higher than this
transformed estimate from DiMasi et al. (2003) although $21m lies within the 95% confidence
interval.
15
To compare the expenditure by phase it is necessary to do another transformation. The
numbers presented in DiMasi et al. (2003) are for the average drug over the length of the phase, while
9
A new formulation may, for example, be an extended release version of an existing approved drug.
10
Thanks to an anonymous referee for this suggestion. The estimates of expenditure per drug including formulations are lower
than the estimates presented here. The last section suggests that this occurs because expenditure on new formulations is
substantially lower than for other drugs.
11
Most of the decrease seems to come from including the sales variable.
12
Note that these results are most properly thought of as correlations between the number of drugs and the amount of expenditure.
There has been no effort made to account for endogeniety in the joint decisions to increase expenditure and take more drugs into
clinical trials.
13
From DiMasi et al. (2003) the average durations are 12, 26 and 34 months, respectively.
14
The average expenditure is (12*1510.71*26*2410.31*34*86)/(12126134) 5(18014431906)/72 521.
15
$21m does not lie within the 90% confidence interval. Although, this does not account for sampling error with the original
DiMasi et al. (2003) estimate.
SPENDING ON NEW DRUG DEVELOPMENT
Copyright r2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Health Econ. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hec
we have estimated expenditure for 1 year. If we use the phase durations presented in Table II we can
estimate expenditure for the whole phase. This procedure gives 1.3817m 5$24m for Phase I, which is
more than DiMasi et al. (2003) estimate of $15m for Phase I. For Phase II the same method produces an
estimate of $86m, which is much higher than the DiMasi et al. (2003) estimate of $24m. Finally, for
Phase III this method gives an estimate of $61m, which is less than the DiMasi et al. (2003) estimate of
$86m. For Phases I and III, the DiMasi et al. (2003) estimates lie within the 95% confidence interval
around our estimates. However, there is no overlap between the confidence interval around the DiMasi
et al. (2003) estimate of Phase II expenditure and the confidence interval around our estimate.
It is not clear what explains such a large discrepancy between our estimate of Phase II expenditure
and DiMasi et al. (2003) estimate. One possibility and a more general concern is that our method may
be misallocating expenditure to drugs in different stages of development. This may occur for two
reasons. First, we assume that if a drug moves into a new phase in a particular year then the drug has
been in that phase for the whole year. Still, given the expected difference in Phases II and III expenditure
this assumption is more likely to lead to an underestimate of Phase III expenditure than an overestimate
of Phase II expenditure. Second, the relationship between financial years and the years assigned in the
data. Again, this may reduce the accuracy of the estimates but it is unlikely to bias the estimates.
Another possibility is that there is under reporting of drugs in human clinical trials particularly in the
earlier phases.
16
As other work has shown, expenditure on research and development is increasing at a substantial
rate. In fact, here we have it increasing at a parabolic rate although this is due to the particular
functional form that is used in the estimation. The results also show that there is a strong relationship
between sales and research and development expenditure with every $1 in sales associated with an extra
$0.07 in R&D expenditure. Note also, adding sales to the regression substantially improves the model’s
ability to explain the data. The constant in this estimation cannot really be interpreted as we do not have
a measure of the stock of drugs in development as of 1989. We are only able to observe new
development starts in 1989 and later.
The baseline regression measures the average expenditure on new drugs by firm and year. It does not
account for whether that average may be driven up by the large increase in R&D expenditure observed
Table III. R&D expenses OLS (robust standard errors)
12345 6
All phases 74.31

74.86

26.85

(5.87) (5.91) (3.44)
Phase I 80.72

78.05

16.78
(18.61) (18.61) (10.35)
Phase II 68.01

69.07

33.59

(12.72) (12.67) (6.80)
Phase III 76.94

80.08

26.78

(23.90) (24.07) (11.08)
Time 62.34

62.27

23.75

25.31

(10.88) (13.08) (5.91) (6.76)
Time
2
4.32

4.31

2.09

2.19

(0.83) (0.97) (0.46) (0.53)
Sales 0.07

0.07

(0.01) (0.01)
Constant 22.64 21.49 147.19

147.97

19.87 23.16
(20.88) (21.00) (31.04) (36.18) (17.20) (17.69)
Observations 1682 1682 1682 1682 1682 1682
R
2
0.59 0.59 0.60 0.60 0.89 0.89
Standard errors are clustered on firm names.

Is statisically different from 0 at 1% level and
is at 5% level.
16
It is not clear exactly how such under reporting would bias the results and in what direction.
C. P. ADAMS AND V. V. BRANTNER
Copyright r2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Health Econ. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hec
during the period or by large expenditures by the larger pharmaceutical firms. Latter regressions add a
parabolic time trend and a parameter (‘sales’) to capture variation across firms. The time trend estimates
capture the large increase in expenditure that occurred during the period. The sales coefficient suggests
that large firms, at least large firm/years, are associated with large expenditures per drug.
17
This
variation across firms is also captured to some extent via the quantile regression analysis presented in
the next section.
18
This analysis suggests larger firms spend more on clinical trials.
Note that the measured positive relationship between sales and expenditure may not be causal.
Larger pharmaceutical firms may have different R&D strategies than smaller firms. For example, Big
Pharma may run substantially more trials over different treatments, comparison groups, and
populations compared with smaller firms. Such trials may put the firm in a better position to sell the
drug internationally and in multiple domestic markets for different indications. Note also that these
numbers do not measure expenditure by smaller non-publicly traded firms such as those funded by
venture capital firms.
3.2. Quartile expenditure estimates
Table IV presents results from the 25, 50 and 75% quartile regressions. Comparing these results to the
results from columns 5 and 6 in Table III we see that expenditure per drug per year is substantially less
at the lower quartiles. At the bottom quartile, expenditure per new drug in development is around $9m
per year, with $15m at the median and $18m at the top quartile. All these numbers are estimated fairly
precisely. These numbers compare to $27m per year for the mean. Similarly, estimated expenditures per
phase of development are substantially lower at the 25, 50 and 75% quartiles relative to the mean. The
results suggest that the distribution of expenditure on drug development is quite skewed. These results
suggest that a number of firms spend very large sums on drug development.
As before, we can transform our median estimates to compare with the median estimates presented in
DiMasi et al. (2003). This procedure gives 1.3814.60 5$20m for Phase I, which is more than DiMasi
et al. (2003) estimate of $14m for Phase I. For Phase II the same method produces an estimate of $36m,
which is much higher than the DiMasi et al. (2003) estimate of $17m. Finally, for Phase III this method
gives an estimate of $30m, which is much less than the DiMasi et al. (2003) estimate of $62m.
3.3. Implications for cost estimates
If we use the mean estimates for expenditure on drugs in development in place of the survey estimates
used by DiMasi et al. (2003) we can recalculate the over all ‘cost of drug development’ or more
accurately the net revenue needed to make investment in drug development profitable. Doing this
calculation using the same durations and success rates as reported in Adams and Brantner (2006) we
estimate new drug development cost to be $1214m, which is much higher than the original estimate of
$802m or even the Adams and Brantner (2006) estimate of $867m. These high estimates may be due to
measurement of expenditure on the marginal drug rather than the average drug.
19
However, such an
estimate may be more useful to policy makers as it is more likely to measure the impact of changes in
17
The baseline analysis is measured at the firm/year level. This means that we are measuring the expenditure of the average firm/
year on a drug rather than the expenditure on the average drug. If the average firm/year is large then our measure may be high
because large firms happen to spend more on drugs. By adding a coefficient for firm size the measure can be adjusted to account
for the variation in expenditure across firms. Note however, that if the average drug is developed in a large firm then these results
may need to be adjusted either by adding back in the sales coefficient multiplied by the sales of the firm, which produces the
average drug or by looking at the quartile estimates in the next section.
18
Note that the coefficient estimate on sales is larger for the 75% quartile compared with the 50% quartile and the 25% quartile.
That is, for drugs with larger expenditures there is a stronger relationship between the size of the firm and the size of the
expenditures.
19
Note also that these estimates are based on the very high Phase II expenditure estimates.
SPENDING ON NEW DRUG DEVELOPMENT
Copyright r2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Health Econ. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hec
policy on the development of new drugs. We could interpret these estimates as stating a firm would need
expected net revenue of over $1 billion to develop one more drug for the market.
20
3.4. Expenditure by therapy
DiMasi et al. (2004) presents estimates of drug development costs for a small number of major
therapies. In attempt to replicate this work, Table V presents results similar to those presented in
Table III but where the drug counts are by major therapeutic category. Table V presents the marginal
cost of a drug by major therapy grouping. This number is estimated by counting the number of drugs in
human clinical trials for each of the major categories presented.
21
Note, that we would not expect these
numbers to be negative.
22
The table shows cardiovascular, dermatological, genitourinary, anticancer
and neurological drugs all have more expenditure per drug in human clinical trials than the average
drug. Note, however, only genitourinary drugs are estimated to be statistically different from the
average at traditional levels. New formulations of existing drugs have substantially smaller expenditure
in human clinical trials than the average drug. In fact, expenditure on new formulation is not estimated
to be statistically different from zero, but is statistically different from the average. The reader may be
surprised that biotech drugs are estimated to have less than average expenditure (although the estimate
is not statistically different from the average). This may be due to imprecise measurement, or it may be
due to the way these drugs are categorized in the data. That is, more important biological drugs may be
categorized under their indication (anticancer or musculoskeletal) rather than as a product of the
biotech industry.
Some of these results can be compared with the results presented in DiMasi et al. (2004). It should be
noted, however, that in both this paper and the DiMasi et al. (2004) paper the sample sizes for
individual therapeutic categories can be quite small. There are three categories in which both papers
Table IV. R&D expenses quantiles (standard errors)
25% 25% 50% 50% 75% 75%
All phases 8.88

14.60

18.68

(0.12) (0.19) (0.15)
Phase I 7.65

18.35

18.31

(0.42) (0.55) (0.44)
Phase II 10.73

13.98

22.59

(0.36) (0.46) (0.39)
Phase III 7.84

13.05

15.45

(0.44) (0.58) (0.50)
Time 2.48

2.56

3.58

3.52

4.46

4.09

(0.69) (0.80) (1.01) (1.00) (0.80) (0.85)
Time
2
0.19

0.19

0.29

0.29

0.39

0.36

(0.05) (0.05) (0.07) (0.07) (0.05) (0.06)
Sales 0.07

0.07

0.08

0.08

0.10

0.10

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
Constant 2.15 2.16 6.82
6.54
14.85

13.81

(2.27) (2.61) (3.31) (3.26) (2.52) (2.69)
Observations 1682 1682 1682 1682 1682 1682
Pseudo R
2
0.60 0.60 0.70 0.70 0.80 0.80
Standard errors are in parenthesis.

Refers to statistical significance from 0 at the 1% level,
at the 5% level.
20
Thanks to Mark Duggan for his thoughts about the differences between marginal and average drugs.
21
Note that we only include the larger therapeutic categories as smaller categories do not have enough drugs in human clinical
trials for reliable estimates. Thanks to an anonymous referee for this suggestion. We have also estimated expenditure by therapy
for each phase, but we do not include these results because of concern about the reliability of the estimates given the small
number of drugs in each phase for each therapy.
22
Therefore, the observed negative coefficients suggest that the model may be misspecified, although none of the negative
coefficients are statistically significantly different from zero.
C. P. ADAMS AND V. V. BRANTNER
Copyright r2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Health Econ. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hec
report results cardiovascular, anti-infective and neurological/CNS.
23
For these three categories the
expenditure estimates for drugs in any of the three phases of human clinical trials are $36m, $27m and
$33m, respectively, where the estimate for cardiovascular drugs and neurological drugs are statistically
significantly different from 0 at the 95% level and the estimate for anti-infective drugs is not. To
compare these numbers to the numbers in DiMasi et al. (2004) we can make the same transformation as
above to get estimates of $17m, $33m and $17m respectively.
24
While the magnitudes of the estimates do
not differ that greatly, particularly for anti-infectives, the DiMasi et al. (2004) estimates are also located
within the traditional confidence intervals of the estimates presented in Table V.
These results support the argument in Adams and Brantner (2006) that there is substantial variation
in drug development costs by therapeutic category. On average annual expenditure by drug is $27m.
However, for genitourinary drugs like Viagra, the expenditure number is four times higher. It is also
higher for dermatological and cancer drugs. In contrast annual expenditure on new formulations of
existing drugs is only a couple of million of dollars. Do therapeutic categories with high annual
expenditures have high success rates and short durations to compensate? Not necessarily. Results
presented in Adams and Brantner (2006) suggest genitourinary drugs do have very high success rates
and relatively short durations. This means that their overall drug development costs may not be too
different from ‘the average drug’. However, cancer drugs have relatively low success rates and long
durations making them much more expensive than the average drug (Adams and Brantner, 2006).
4. CONCLUSION
Recent criticism of the study by DiMasi et al. (2003) argues it is not possible to verify the results because
the data are confidential. Further, Light and Warburton (2005) argue the sample of expenditure
estimates may not be representative and may be biased upwards. This paper attempts to replicate
DiMasi et al. (2003) expenditure estimates using publicly available data. By matching information on
Table V. R&D expenses OLS by therapy for all phases
123
Coefficient Robust SE Coefficient Robust SE Coefficient Robust SE
Cardiovascular 137.65

26.28 141.48

26.05 35.85
17.75
Dermatological 254.60

106.99 261.49
104.54 99.71
48.86
Formulations 3.69 8.96 6.28 8.42 4.01 3.45
Genitourinary 58.96 50.14 52.98 48.27 108.04

41.06
Anti-infective 129.96

35.87 130.07

35.50 26.56 14.83
Anticancer 56.17
27.82 52.25
26.50 43.14

15.78
Neurological 136.01

29.25 139.13

29.33 33.32
16.03
Biotechnology 26.89 15.03 26.48 14.88 24.40

6.75
Miscellaneous 10.14 16.79 9.31 16.24 2.81 5.08
Time 63.53

11.06 22.89

6.20
Time
2
4.60

0.84 1.96

0.49
Sales 0.07

0.01
Constant 7.54 22.91 168.53

34.66 25.67 17.71
Observations 1682 1682 1682
R
2
0.65 0.66 0.90
Standard errors are clustered on firm names.

Refers to statistical significance at the 1% level and
refers to the 5% level.
23
The last category may not overlap as the definition of CNS drugs in DiMasi et al. (2004) may not be the same as the definition of
neurological drugs used in Pharmaprojects.
24
The formula is the same as the one presented in footnote 14 where the expenditure estimates and the probabilities are from
DiMasi et al. (2004) and the proportion of time in each phase is as for the original formula. Note that DiMasi et al. (2004) do not
present duration by phase for individual therapeutic categories.
SPENDING ON NEW DRUG DEVELOPMENT
Copyright r2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Health Econ. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hec
drugs in development with research and development expenditure over the period 1989–2001 and across
some 180 firms, we infer the additional annual expenditure on each new drug in development. Our
results suggest expenditure on Phases I and II is higher than suggested by DiMasi et al. (2003) while
expenditure on Phase III is lower. If we combine our estimates in this paper with estimates on success
rates and durations from Adams and Brantner (2006) we find that the ‘cost of drug development’ (or the
net revenue needed to make investment in new drugs profitable) is over $1 billion and higher than the
DiMasi et al. (2003) estimate of $802m. As we are estimating expenditure on the additional drug we may
be estimating the revenue needed to invest in the marginal rather than the average drug. While this may
make our estimate higher, it may also make our estimate more useful when considering the
consequences of policy changes such as price regulation. This paper also confirms results presented in
Adams and Brantner (2006) that there is a substantial amount of variation in expenditure by therapeutic
category.
REFERENCES
Abrantes-Metz R, Adams C, Metz A. 2005. Pharmaceutical development phases: a duration analysis. Journal
Pharmaceutical Finance, Economics and Policy 14(4): 19–42.
Adams C, Brantner V. 2003. New drug development: estimating entry from human clinical trials. FTC Working
Paper 262, July 7, 2003.
Adams C, Brantner V. 2006. Estimating the cost of new drug development: is it really $802m? Health Affairs
March/April: 420–428.
Cockburn I, Henderson R. 1996. Scale, scope, and spillovers: determinants of research productivity in the
pharmaceutical industry. RAND Journal of Economics 27(1): 32–59.
Cockburn I, Henderson R. 2001. Scale and scope in drug development: unpacking the advantages of size in the
pharmaceutical research. Journal of Health Economics 20(6): 1033–1057.
Danzon P, Epstein A, Nicholson S. 2004. Mergers and Acquisitions in the Pharmaceutical and Biotech Industries,
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, November.
Danzon P, Nicholson S, Sousa Pereira N. 2005. Productivity in biotech-pharmaceutical R&D: the role of experience
and alliances. Journal of Health Economics. 24(2): 317–339.
DiMasi J, Hansen R, Grabowski H. 2003. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs.
Journal of Health Economics 22: 151–185.
DiMasi J, Hansen R, Grabowski H. 2004. R&D costs and returns by therapeutic category. Drug Information
Journal 38: 211–223.
Light D, Warburton R. 2005. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Journal of Health Economics 24:
1030–1033.
C. P. ADAMS AND V. V. BRANTNER
Copyright r2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Health Econ. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hec
... It required a thorough analysis of the latest developments in AI, including progress in algorithmic design, enhancements in computational power, and innovative uses of AI in fields, like digital health and biotechnology [40,41]. We carefully examined advanced AI technologies, such as reinforcement learning and generative adversarial networks (GANs), assessing their potential to bring about significant advancements in the fields of drug discovery and personalized medicine [42,43]. ...
... This breakthrough has the potential to uncover new therapeutic targets. Advanced methods, like deep learning, have been employed to detect genetic markers and pathways linked to diseases from intricate biological data, leading to substantial enhancements in the efficiency and precision of target discovery [43,44]. ...
Article
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in pharmaceutical sciences marks a signifi-cant milestone in the field of drug discovery and development, presenting unique prospects for crea-tivity and productivity. This review article delves into the significant impact of AI on contemporary pharmaceutical practices, highlighting its incorporation in different phases of drug discovery and personalized medicine. Our goal is to offer a thorough analysis of the current landscape of AI appli-cations in the field, outline the extent of recent progress, and explore the obstacles and potential future paths for AI technologies. Significant advancements have been made in the drug development pro-cess, resulting in cost reduction and improved drug efficacy and safety profiling. In order to fully harness its potential, the various obstacles involved in the integration of AI must be overcome. These include ensuring the quality of data, navigating through regulatory requirements, and addressing eth-ical considerations. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of AI techniques, discussing the strengths and limitations of current technologies and identifying emerging trends that could poten-tially shape future pharmaceutical landscapes. Exploring the far-reaching effects of AI on healthcare, economics, and ethics, this analysis offers valuable insights into the potential of AI-driven strategies to revolutionize healthcare, making it more individualized and efficient. In the end, this review seeks to provide guidance to stakeholders in understanding the intricacies of AI in pharmaceutical sciences and utilizing its potential to improve patient outcomes.
... It required a thorough analysis of the latest developments in AI, including progress in algorithmic design, enhancements in computational power, and innovative uses of AI in fields, like digital health and biotechnology [40,41]. We carefully examined advanced AI technologies, such as reinforcement learning and generative adversarial networks (GANs), assessing their potential to bring about significant advancements in the fields of drug discovery and personalized medicine [42,43]. ...
... This breakthrough has the potential to uncover new therapeutic targets. Advanced methods, like deep learning, have been employed to detect genetic markers and pathways linked to diseases from intricate biological data, leading to substantial enhancements in the efficiency and precision of target discovery [43,44]. ...
Article
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in pharmaceutical sciences marks a signifi-cant milestone in the field of drug discovery and development, presenting unique prospects for crea-tivity and productivity. This review article delves into the significant impact of AI on contemporary pharmaceutical practices, highlighting its incorporation in different phases of drug discovery and personalized medicine. Our goal is to offer a thorough analysis of the current landscape of AI appli-cations in the field, outline the extent of recent progress, and explore the obstacles and potential future paths for AI technologies. Significant advancements have been made in the drug development pro-cess, resulting in cost reduction and improved drug efficacy and safety profiling. In order to fully harness its potential, the various obstacles involved in the integration of AI must be overcome. These include ensuring the quality of data, navigating through regulatory requirements, and addressing eth-ical considerations. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of AI techniques, discussing the strengths and limitations of current technologies and identifying emerging trends that could poten-tially shape future pharmaceutical landscapes. Exploring the far-reaching effects of AI on healthcare, economics, and ethics, this analysis offers valuable insights into the potential of AI-driven strategies to revolutionize healthcare, making it more individualized and efficient. In the end, this review seeks to provide guidance to stakeholders in understanding the intricacies of AI in pharmaceutical sciences and utilizing its potential to improve patient outcomes.
... A drug's specific pharmacological action frequently gives rise to a spectrum of side effects, which may exhibit secondary therapeutic uses. Drug repurposing has several advantages over developing new drugs, including a lower risk of failure due to established safety profiles, reduced development time, and lower investment requirements (53)(54)(55)(56)(57). Repurposable drugs include generic (off-patent) medications currently available on the market, on-patent medications such as Locametz and Plavicto, including those still undergoing clinical trials, and failed drugs initially intended for a different purpose. ...
... Unfortunately, this process is often slow, costly, and has high failure rates due to safety or efficacy issues. The average investment for developing a new drug is more than $2.5 billion, and it takes 10-15 years (53,54) for a new product to be developed, with less than 10% of Phase I candidates receiving FDA approval (55,56). An alternative strategy known as "drug repurposing" has gained traction to address these challenges and accelerate the discovery of new treatments. ...
Article
Full-text available
Giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) is a rare bone tumor often necessitating surgical intervention, radiation therapy, or treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab. 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy for GCTB has limited specificity, and the relatively high uptake of ¹⁸F-FDG in GCTB makes it challenging to differentiate it from other benign bone tumors. More specific detection and treatment modalities for GCTB are needed to enhance patient monitoring and outcomes. Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) is present in the neovasculature of various tumors, yet unexplored in GCTB. PSMA-targeted imaging and radiotherapeutic agents Locametz and Pluvicto are a powerful theranostic pair for detecting and treating PSMA-positive metastatic tumors, including those in bone, and thus have considerable potential to be repurposed for GCTB. This study aimed to determine if the vasculature of GCTB was PSMA-positive and whether targeting it with PSMA-specific agents was feasible. Using bone core samples from 28 GCTB patients and 9 negative controls, we present the first robust detection of PSMA on the tumor vasculature of GCTB. To demonstrate the potential repurposed use of PSMA-targeted agents in detecting and treating GCTB, we used a PSMA-specific fluorescent probe (FAM-C6-1298) as a model for these radiopharmaceutical agents. Incubation of fresh GCTB tissue samples with FAM-C6-1298 showed increased fluorescence intensity compared to controls, indicating successful targeting of PSMA in GCTB tissue. In conclusion, our data established that PSMA is not only present in the tumor vasculature of GCTB patient tissue but can be effectively targeted with repurposed PSMA-specific radiopharmaceuticals for diagnosis and therapy.
... 6 Conversely, despite our knowledge of the importance of microorganisms, there remains a significant gap in our ability to regulate them using methods such as pharmaceuticals, 7 due to a lack of understanding of their complex relationships. 8 Traditional biomedical experiments are protracted, demanding, and costly, [9][10][11] exacerbating the dilemma of microbe-drug association (MDA) identification. ...
... o, ranging from {0.05, 0.075, 0.1, 0.125, to 0.15}, is set to measure the contribution of the labels of unlabeled samples to the graph reconstruction process in the MFPUB module. a and l are the weight coefficients in eqn (10), which plays a role in balancing the weight of regularization and reconstruction loss. The value of a is chosen from {1 Â 10 À4 , 2 Â 10 À4 , 3 Â 10 À4 , 4 Â 10 À4 , to 5 Â 10 À4 }, while l is chosen from {2 Â 10 À3 , 4 Â 10 À3 , 6 Â 10 À3 , 8 Â 10 À3 , to 1 Â 10 À2 }. ...
Article
Extensive research has confirmed the widespread presence of microorganisms in the human body and their crucial impact on human health, with drugs being an effective method of regulation. Hence it is essential to identify potential microbe-drug associations (MDAs). Owing to the limitations of wet experiments, such as high costs and long durations, computational methods for binary classification tasks have become valuable alternatives for traditional experimental approaches. Since validated negative MDAs are absent in existing datasets, most methods randomly sample negatives from unlabeled data, which evidently leads to false negative issues. In this manuscript, we propose a novel model based on graph representation learning and positive-unlabeled learning (GRL-PUL), to infer potential MDAs. Firstly, we screen reliable negative samples by applying weighted matrix factorization and the PU-bagging strategy on the known microbe-drug bipartite network. Then, we combine muti-model attributes and constructed a microbe-drug heterogeneous network. After that, graph attention auto-encoder module, an encoder combining graph convolutional networks and graph attention networks, is introduced to extract informative embeddings based on the microbe-drug heterogeneous network. Lastly, we adopt a modified random forest as the final classifier. Comparison experiments with five baseline models on three benchmark datasets show that our model surpasses other methods in terms of the AUC, AUPR, ACC, F1-score and MCC. Moreover, several case studies show that GRL-PUL could capably predict latent MDAs. Notably, we further verify the effectiveness of a reliable negative sample selection module by migrating it to other state-of-the-art models, and the experimental results demonstrate its ability to substantially improve their prediction performance.
Article
This research investigates the role of bioinformatics and machine learning (ML) in reducing drug development costs, with a comparative analysis between developed and developing countries. Using macroeconomic and innovation-related indicators extracted from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators database, the study incorporates data from 10 developed and 10 developing nations across the period 2010 to 2023. Key variables include GDP per capita, health expenditure, digital infrastructure, and R&D investment. A quantitative methodology with a positivist philosophical stance and deductive approach was adopted, applying machine learning-based regression analysis to identify how these factors influence the integration of AI-driven bioinformatics in pharmaceutical research. The findings reveal that countries with higher GDP, better digital infrastructure, and greater R&D funding are more likely to successfully implement bioinformatics tools, thereby reducing drug development costs and accelerating innovation. The study concludes that economic strength and technological readiness play a critical role in determining the impact of ML on pharmaceutical efficiency. It highlights the disparities between developed and developing countries and offers practical recommendations to bridge these gaps. Limitations include indirect measurement of cost reduction and reliance on secondary data. The study provides a valuable foundation for policymakers and pharmaceutical stakeholders aiming to adopt AI technologies in a cost-effective and inclusive manner.
Article
Precision medicine is transforming healthcare by offering tailored treatments that enhance patient outcomes and reduce costs. As our understanding of complex diseases improves, clinical trials increasingly aim to detect subgroups of patients with enhanced treatment effects. Biomarker-driven adaptive enrichment designs, which initially enroll a broad population and later restrict to treatment-sensitive patients, are gaining popularity. However, current practice often assumes either pre-trial knowledge of biomarkers or a simple, linear relationship between continuous markers and treatment effectiveness. Motivated by a trial studying rheumatoid arthritis treatment, we propose a Bayesian adaptive enrichment design to identify predictive variables from a larger set of candidate biomarkers. Our approach uses a flexible modeling framework where the effects of continuous biomarkers are represented using free knot B-splines. We then estimate key parameters by marginalizing over all possible variable combinations using Bayesian model averaging. At interim analyses, we assess whether a biomarker-defined subgroup has enhanced or reduced treatment effects, allowing for early termination for efficacy or futility and restricting future enrollment to treatment-sensitive patients. We consider both pre-categorized and continuous biomarkers, the latter potentially having complex, nonlinear relationships to the outcome and treatment effect. Through simulations, we derive the operating characteristics of our design and compare its performance to existing methods.
Article
Full-text available
We examine the determinants and effects of M&A activity in the pharmaceutical|biotechnology industry using SDC data on 383 firms from 1988 to 2001. For large firms, mergers are a response to expected excess capacity due to patent expirations and gaps in a firm's product pipeline. For small firms, mergers are primarily an exit strategy in response to financial trouble (low Tobin's q, few marketed products, low cash-sales ratios). In estimating effects of mergers, we use a propensity score to control for selection based on observed characteristics. Controlling for merger propensity, large firms that merged experienced a similar change in enterprise value, sales, employees, and R&D, and had slower growth in operating profit, compared with similar firms that did not merge. Thus mergers may be a response to trouble, but they are not a solution. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Article
Full-text available
The clinical period (i.e. clinical trial and long term animal testing) development costs of a random sample of new chemical entities (NCEs) were examined for differences in average cost. All of the NCEs studied were first tested in humans between 1970 and 1982, and were classified for the purposes of the study by therapeutic class. The costs of unsuccessful projects were included with those of projects that resulted in US marketing approval. Including income forgone from expending funds before returns are earned (‘time costs’), the capitalised (i.e. out-of-pocket plus time) clinical period costs per approved NCE were US70, US98, USI03andUSI03 and US163 million (1993 dollars) for anti-infective, cardiovascular, neuropharmacological and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, respectively. Combining the data for all therapeutic categories, the mean clinical period cost per approved NCE was US93million.Omittingcostsassociatedwithunsuccessfulprojects,themeancapitalisedclinicalperiodcostsforapprovedNCEsrangedfromUS93 million. Omitting costs associated with unsuccessful projects, the mean capitalised clinical period costs for approved NCEs ranged from US7.1 million (for topical steroids) to $US66.7 million (for cardiovascular agents) [ 1993 dollars ]. The estimates of total clinical period costs per approved NCE depend on average out-of-pocket clinical phase costs, attrition rates across phases (i.e. the rates at which compounds drop out of active testing), the probability of marketing approval and deve lopment and regulatory review times. Phase attrition and approval rates are the most imponant sources of variability in total clinical period costs between therapeutic categories. Development cost estimates by therapeutic category did not correlate strongly with US sales in the fifth year of marketing. Cardiovascular NCEs had much higher than average sales revenues but clinical development costs for these drugs were only slightly above average. Conversely, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs attained average sales revenues but had much higher than average development costs.
Article
Full-text available
We examine the relationship between firm size and research productivity in the pharmaceutical industry. Using detailed internal firm data, we find that larger research efforts are more productive, not only because they enjoy economies of scale, but also because they realize economies of scope by sustaining diverse portfolios of research projects that capture internal and external knowledge spillovers. In pharmaceuticals, economies of scope in research are important in shaping the boundaries of the firm, and it may be worth tolerating the static efficiency loss attributable to the market power of large firms in exchange for their superior innovative performance.
Article
Objectives: This study examines the degree to which therapeutic class accounts for variability in drug development costs. It also scrutinizes how sales levels vary across the associated therapeutic classes for those drugs that have reached the marketplace. Data and Methods: A stratified random sample of 68 investigational drugs that first entered clinical testing anywhere in the world from 1983 to 1994 was selected from the pipelines of 10 pharmaceutical firms. Clinical period cost data were obtained for these compounds by phase. The sample consisted both of drugs that failed in testing and drugs that obtained marketing approval. We grouped the drugs by therapeutic category. Clinical period costs per approved new drug (inclusive of failures) were obtained for the analgesic/anesthetic, antiinfective, cardiovascular, and central nervous system (CNS) therapeutic classes. Worldwide sales profiles for new drugs approved in the United States from 1990 to 1994 over a 20-year product life cycle were computed based on IMS Health sales data. All costs and sales were expressed in year 2000 dollars. Results: Out-of-pocket clinical period cost per approved drug (inclusive of failures) for cardiovascular (277million)andCNS(277 million) and CNS (273 million) drugs was close to the overall average (282million).However,antiinfectivedrugcostswereconsiderablyaboveaverage(282 million). However, antiinfective drug costs were considerably above average (362 million) and analgesic/anesthetic drug costs were modestly below average (252million).Theresultswerequalitativelysimilarwhenthedevelopmenttimelineswereusedtodeterminecapitalized(outofpocketplustime)costs.Incomparisontotheoverallaverageof252 million). The results were qualitatively similar when the development timelines were used to determine capitalized (out-of-pocket plus time) costs. In comparison to the overall average of 466 million, the capitalized cost per approved drug was slightly lower for CNS (464million)andforcardiovascular(464 million) and for cardiovascular (460 million) drugs. The capitalized costs were 375millionforanalgesic/anestheticdrugsand375 million for analgesic/anesthetic drugs and 492 million for antiinfective drugs. The mean net present values of life cycle sales for new drugs approved in the first half of the 1990s were 2434million,2434 million, 1080 million, 2199million,2199 million, 3668 million, and $4177 million for all drugs, analgesic/anesthetic drugs, antiinfective drugs, cardiovascular drugs, and CNS drugs, respectively. Conclusions: Development costs vary substantially from drug to drug. A drug's therapeutic class can explain some of that variability. The sales of new drugs by broad therapeutic category did not correlate well with average development costs. However, given the dynamic nature of pharmaceutical markets and changes over time in research and development (R&D) expenditure shares, the results are still consistent with a model of firm behavior that posits that R&D efforts will generally shift toward high net return, and away from low net return, therapeutic areas.
Article
This paper estimates a duration model of late stage drug development in the pharmaceutical industry using publicly available data. The paper presents descriptive results on the estimated relationship between a particular drug's characteristics such as therapy category, route of administration and originator's size, and that drug's pathway through the three stages of human clinical trials and regulatory review. The results suggest that drugs with longer durations are less likely to succeed, drugs from larger firms are more likely to succeed and faster in the later phases of development, and that durations fell between 1995 and 2002.
Article
This paper analyses a detailed data set on drugs in human clinical trials around the world between 1989 and 2002. The data provides information on the probabilities with which drugs successfully complete the different phases of the trials and the durations of successful completions. The paper shows that success rates and durations can vary substantially across observable characteristics of the drugs, including primary indication, originating company, route of administration and chemistry. It suggests that analysis of this type of data can help us to answer questions such as: Do AIDS drugs get to market faster? Do Biotech drugs have higher probabilities of getting to market? This paper provides some general statistics for analyzing these questions.
Article
Drug development performance is examined using data on clinical research projects of 10 pharmaceutical companies. In contrast to previous work on the discovery phase of pharmaceutical R&D we find a strong correlation between the diversity of firms' development efforts and the success probability of individual projects, but no effect of scale per se. Large firms' superior performance in drug development appears to be driven by returns to scope rather than returns to scale. Scope is confounded with firm fixed effects, however, suggesting an important role for inter-firm differences in the organization and management of the development function.
Article
The research and development costs of 68 randomly selected new drugs were obtained from a survey of 10 pharmaceutical firms. These data were used to estimate the average pre-tax cost of new drug development. The costs of compounds abandoned during testing were linked to the costs of compounds that obtained marketing approval. The estimated average out-of-pocket cost per new drug is 403 million US dollars (2000 dollars). Capitalizing out-of-pocket costs to the point of marketing approval at a real discount rate of 11% yields a total pre-approval cost estimate of 802 million US dollars (2000 dollars). When compared to the results of an earlier study with a similar methodology, total capitalized costs were shown to have increased at an annual rate of 7.4% above general price inflation.
Article
Using data on over 900 firms for the period 1988-2000, we estimate the effect on phase-specific biotech and pharmaceutical R&D success rates of a firm's overall experience, its experience in the relevant therapeutic category, the diversification of its experience across categories, the industry's experience in the category, and alliances with large and small firms. We find that success probabilities vary substantially across therapeutic categories and are negatively correlated with mean sales by category, which is consistent with a model of dynamic, competitive entry. Returns to experience are statistically significant but economically small for the relatively straightforward phase 1 trials. We find evidence of large, positive and diminishing returns to a firm's overall experience (across all therapeutic categories) for the larger and more complex late-stage trials that focus on a drug's efficacy. There is some evidence that a drug is more likely to complete phase 3 if developed by firms whose experience is focused rather than broad (diseconomies of scope). There is evidence of positive knowledge spillovers across firms for phase 1. However, for phase 2 and phase 3 the estimated effects of industry-wide experience are negative, which may reflect either higher Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval standards in crowded therapeutic categories or that firms in such categories must pursue more difficult targets. Products developed in an alliance tend to have a higher probability of success, at least for the more complex phase 2 and phase 3 trials, and particularly if the licensee is a large firm.