Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs☆
Introduction
We provide an updated assessment of the value of the resources expended by industry to discover and develop new drugs and biologics, and the extent to which these private sector costs have changed over time. The costs required to develop these new products clearly play a role in the incentives to invest in the innovative activities that can generate medical innovation. Our prior studies also have been used by other researchers, including government agencies, to analyze various policy questions (US Congressional Budget Office, 1998, US Congressional Budget Office, 2006).
The full social costs of discovering and developing new compounds will include these private sector costs, but will also include government-funded and non-profit expenditures on basic and clinical research that can result in leads and targets which drug developers can explore. These additional costs can be substantial.1 However, it is difficult to identify and measure non-private expenditures that can be linked to specific new therapies. Thus, we focus here on the private sector costs.
The methodological approach used in this paper follows that used for our previous studies, although we apply additional statistical tests to the data (Hansen, 1979, DiMasi et al., 1991, DiMasi et al., 1995a, DiMasi et al., 1995b, DiMasi et al., 2003, DiMasi et al., 2004, DiMasi and Grabowski, 2007). Because the methodologies are consistent, we can confidently make comparisons of the results in this study to the estimates we found for the earlier studies, which covered earlier periods, to examine and illustrate trends in development costs. These studies used compound-level data on the cost and timing of development for a random sample of new drugs first investigated in humans and annual company pharmaceutical R&D expenditures obtained through surveys of a number pharmaceutical firms.
We analyze private sector R&D activities as long-term investments. The industrial R&D process is marked by substantial financial risks, with expenditures incurred for many development projects that fail to result in a marketed product. Thus, our approach explicitly links the costs of unsuccessful projects to those that are successful in obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities. In addition, the pharmaceutical R&D process is very lengthy, often lasting a decade or more (DiMasi et al., 2003). This makes it essential to model accurately how development expenses are spread over time.
Given our focus on resource costs and how they have changed over time, we develop estimates of the average pre-tax cost of new drug development and compare them to estimates covering prior periods. We corroborated the basic R&D cost results in this study by examining the representativeness of our sample firms and our study data, and by incorporating a number of independently derived results and data relating to the industry and the drug development process into analyses that provide rough comparators for at least components of our cost results. The details of those analyses are provided in our online supplement.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. We briefly discuss the literature on pharmaceutical industry R&D costs since our 2003 study in Section 2. Section 3 briefly outlines the standard paradigm for the drug development process. In Section 4 we describe the survey sample data and the population from which they were drawn, and briefly outline the methodology used to derive full R&D cost estimates from data on various elements of the drug development process. We present base case pre- and post-marketing approval R&D cost estimates in Section 5. Sensitivity analyses are presented in Section 6. We describe the representativeness of our data, various approaches to validating our results, and responses to various critiques in Section 7. Finally, we summarize our findings in Section 8.
Section snippets
Previous studies of the cost of pharmaceutical innovation
Much of the literature on the cost of pharmaceutical innovation dating back decades has already been described by the authors in their previous two studies (DiMasi et al., 1991, DiMasi et al., 2003). The interested reader can find references and discussions about the prior research in those studies. The earliest studies often involved a case study of a single drug (typically without accounting for the cost of failed projects) or they analyzed aggregate data. We will focus here on studies and
The new drug development process
The new drug development process need not follow a fixed pattern, but a standard paradigm has evolved that fits the process well in general. We have described the process in some detail in previous studies, and the FDA's website contains a schematic explaining the usual set of steps along the way from test tube to new compound approval (http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/SmallBusinessAssistance/ucm053131.htm). Marketing approval applications for investigational compounds
Data and methods
Ten multinational pharmaceutical firms of varying sizes provided data through a confidential survey of their new drug and biologics R&D costs.6 Data were collected on clinical phase expenditures and development phase times for a randomly selected sample of the investigational drugs and biologics of the firms
Out-of-pocket clinical cost per investigational drug
To determine expected costs, we need estimates of the clinical development risk profile. We examined the dataset of 1442 self-originated compounds of top 50 pharmaceutical firms described above and estimated the phase transition probabilities shown in Fig. 1. The overall probability of clinical success (i.e., the likelihood that a drug that enters clinical testing will eventually be approved) was estimated to be 11.83%. This success rate is substantially lower than the rate of 21.50% estimated
Sensitivity analysis
We examined how sensitive the results were to extreme values in the data and to changes in certain critical parameters. In particular, we focus in detail in this section on variation in the discount rate used to calculate capitalized costs. We also determine the extent to which key cost drivers (cash outlays, risks, time, and the cost of capital) explain the increase in total cost per approved drug found for this study relative to our previous study.
In addition, since all of the parameters are
Critiques, sample representativeness, and validation
Our prior study results have been questioned on a number of methodological and data grounds (Angell, 2005, Goozner, 2004, Light and Warburton, 2005a, Light and Warburton, 2005b, Love, 2003, Young and Surrusco, 2001). We have rebutted each of these criticisms in detail in a number of venues (e.g., DiMasi et al., 2004, DiMasi et al., 2005a, DiMasi et al., 2005b). We review the critics’ main arguments only briefly here.
Goozner (2004) and Angell (2005) reject opportunity cost calculations because
Conclusions
Studies of the cost of developing new drugs have long been of substantial interest to drug developers, drug regulators, policy makers, and scholars interested in the structure and productivity of the pharmaceutical industry and its contributions to social welfare. The interest has been strong and growing over the last few decades during which cost containment pressures for drugs approved for marketing have expanded and concerns have been raised about industry productivity in an environment in
References (50)
- et al.
Cost of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry
Journal of Health Economics
(1991) - et al.
The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs
Journal of Health Economics
(2003) - et al.
Reply: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Journal of Health Economics
(2005) - et al.
Setting the record straight on setting the record straight: response to the Light and Warburton rejoinder
Journal of Health Economics
(2005) - et al.
Why is the pharmaceutical industry struggling?
- et al.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Journal of Health Economics
(2005) - et al.
Setting the record straight in the reply by DiMasi, Hansen and Grabowski
Journal of Health Economics
(2005) - et al.
Technology policy for a world of skewed-distributed outcomes
Research Policy
(2000) - et al.
An analysis of the impact of FDA's guidelines for addressing cardiovascular risk of drugs for type 2 diabetes on clinical development
Contemporary Clinical Trials
(2011) - et al.
Estimating the cost of new drug development: is it really $802 million?
Health Affairs
(2006)
Spending on new drug development
Health Economics
The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It
Industry funding of the FDA: effects of PDUFA on approval times and withdrawal rates
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery
Decline in economic returns from new drugs raises questions about sustaining innovations
Health Affairs
The most appropriate discount rate
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis
Research and development costs for new drugs by therapeutic category: a study of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry
PharmacoEconomics
R&D costs, innovative output and firm size in the pharmaceutical industry
International Journal of the Economics of Business
New drug development in the United States from 1963 to 1999
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Assessing Claims About the Cost of New Drug Development: A Critique of the Public Citizen and TB Alliance Reports
The cost of biopharmaceutical R&D: is biotech different?
Managerial & Decision Economics
Trends in risks associated with new drug development: success rates for investigational drugs
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Clinical approval success rates for investigational cancer drugs
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
The impact of collaborative and risk-sharing innovation approaches on clinical and regulatory cycle times
Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science
Regulation and economics of drug development
The budget impact of orphan drugs in the US: a 2007–2013 MIDAS sales data analysis
Cited by (2163)
Recent advances in application of computer-aided drug design in anti-COVID-19 Virials Drug Discovery
2024, Biomedicine and PharmacotherapyAre Manufacturing Patents to Blame for Biosimilar Market Launch Delays?
2024, Value in HealthThe rise of spin-offs: Fueling pharmaceutical innovation through collaboration
2024, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity
- ☆
We thank the surveyed firms for providing data, and individuals in those firms who kindly gave their time when we needed some of the responses clarified. All errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors. The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug development (CSDD) is funded in part by unrestricted grants from pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms, as well as companies that provide related services (e.g., contract research, consulting, and technology firms) to the research-based industry. Tufts CSDD's financial disclosure statement can be found here: http://csdd.tufts.edu/about/financial_disclosure. The authors and Tufts CSDD did not receive any external funding to conduct this study. The R&D cost and expenditure data for individual compounds and companies are proprietary and cannot be redistributed. Other data used were obtained from subscription databases and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other websites.