这是indexloc提供的服务,不要输入任何密码
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

R&D Costs and Returns by Therapeutic Category

  • Clinical and Non-Clinical Drug Development
  • Published:
Drug information journal : DIJ / Drug Information Association Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 ($277 million) and CNS ($273 million) drugs was close to the overall average ($282 million). However, antiinfective drug costs were considerably above average ($362 million) and analgesic/anesthetic drug costs were modestly below average ($252 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 ($464 million) and for cardiovascular ($460 million) drugs. The capitalized costs were $375 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 $2434 million, $ 1080 million, $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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  1. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. et al. Cost of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. J Health Econ. 1991;10:107–142.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ. 2003;22:151–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Grabowski HG, Vernon J, DiMasi JA. Returns on research and development for 1990s new drug introductions. PharmacoEconomics. 2002; 20 Suppl. 3:11–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pollack A. Despite billions for discoveries, pipeline of drugs is far from full. The New York Times, April 19, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  5. DiMasi JA. The value of improving the productivity of the drug development process: faster times and better decisions. PharmacoEconomics. 2002; 20 Suppl. 3:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. et al. Research and development costs for new drugs by therapeutic category: a study of the US pharmaceutical industry. PharmacoEconomics. 1995; 7(2):152–169.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. DiMasi JA. Risks in new drug development: approval success rates for investigational drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69:297–307.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Annual report: the Med Ad News 500: the world’s best selling medicines. Med Ad News. 2001; 20(5).

  9. IMS Health Incorporated. IMS Drug Monitor. World Drug Purchases–Retail Pharmacies. Fairfield, CT: IMS Health Incorporated; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Scrip’s 2002 Yearbook. 18th Edition-Volume 2. Richmond, Surrey, UK: PJB Publications Ltd. 2002;278.

  11. Scherer FM. The link between gross profitability and pharmaceutical R&D spending. Health Aff. 2001;20(5):136–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph A. DiMasi PhD..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

DiMasi, J.A., Grabowski, H.G. & Vernon, J. R&D Costs and Returns by Therapeutic Category. Ther Innov Regul Sci 38, 211–223 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150403800301

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150403800301

Key Words