ALERT: This system is being upgraded on Tuesday December 12. It will not be available
for use for several hours that day while the upgrade is in progress. Deposits to DukeSpace
will be disabled on Monday December 11, so no new items are to be added to the repository
while the upgrade is in progress. Everything should be back to normal by the end of
day, December 12.
R&D costs and returns by therapeutic category
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.
Type
Journal articlePermalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/6704Collections
More Info
Show full item recordScholars@Duke
Henry G. Grabowski
Professor Emeritus of Economics
Professor Grabowski specializes in the investigation of economics in the pharmaceutical
industry, government regulation of business, and the economics of innovation. His
specific interests within these fields include intellectual property and generic competition
issues, the effects of government policy actions, and the costs and returns to pharmaceutical
R&D. He has over one hundred peer reviewed articles analyzing the economics of pharmaceuticals
and also several books and monograph publica

Articles written by Duke faculty are made available through the campus open access policy. For more information see: Duke Open Access Policy
Rights for Collection: Scholarly Articles
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info