I am interested to have some cases/examples where scientists come out with an efficient drug against a disease marker (successful clinical trials), although at the end they realized that the cost of developing and marketing that drug was too high to be afforded and covered by most of health insurance systems therefore they decided to quit the project without providing this drug to patients who needed it. Or cases when the project was stopped because at certain point the scientists realized that the cost of production of the drug was very high and the number of patients to whom this drug was targeted wasn't big enough to cover the research/development costs (orphan drug). I know that this is not common because usually no one would do a research without predicting the financial aspect that's why I am asking for your help, if you ever encountered such a case.
I need this information to moderate a debate about biotechnology and society, so if you have another interesting topic, I would really appreciate your suggestions.
Thanks in advance!
A big issue in antibiotic drug research and development these days has to do with the economics of introducing a novel antibiotic into the market when cheap generics are already available. The new drug may be better in some sense (e.g. fewer bacterial strains are resistant to it, or it is less toxic than the older drugs), but the hospitals won't use it very much because it is more expensive, and they won't be able to get sufficiently reimbursed by the insurance companies. Or antibiotic stewardship dictates that the new drug should be "saved" for use only when the cheaper drugs fail. As a result, companies that have completed the clinical trials and manufactured the drug can't sell enough to cover their costs. For some small companies recently, this has caused severe, even terminal, financial hardship. There is legislation pending in the US Congress to try to address this issue, because it is stifling the discovery, development, and use of new antibiotics to address the issue of drug resistant bacteria.
A big issue in antibiotic drug research and development these days has to do with the economics of introducing a novel antibiotic into the market when cheap generics are already available. The new drug may be better in some sense (e.g. fewer bacterial strains are resistant to it, or it is less toxic than the older drugs), but the hospitals won't use it very much because it is more expensive, and they won't be able to get sufficiently reimbursed by the insurance companies. Or antibiotic stewardship dictates that the new drug should be "saved" for use only when the cheaper drugs fail. As a result, companies that have completed the clinical trials and manufactured the drug can't sell enough to cover their costs. For some small companies recently, this has caused severe, even terminal, financial hardship. There is legislation pending in the US Congress to try to address this issue, because it is stifling the discovery, development, and use of new antibiotics to address the issue of drug resistant bacteria.
Aviola Mehmeti ,
There's a blog called "In the Pipeline" in Science Translational Medicine, where you will find plenty of insight on those topics.
Hope it helps!
You should also consider the disconnect between the scientists and the pharmaceutical firms. Scientists might happily do the research to develop new therapies, and perhaps even get grant support for preliminary clinical trials. So there may be hundreds or thousands of potential therapeutics out there. However there may not have been a thorough cost analysis at that stage. But when it comes to full clinical testing and development, the costs of bringing a new drug to market are remarkably high, so pharmaceutical firms may choose not to develop because it does not make business sense. It is very rare that the cost of producing the drug is the issue, it is more often issues of liability, testing, efficacy, market share, competition, etc.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry
- Biochemistry