Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Opinion
  • Published:

Cutting the cost of drug development?

Abstract

The cost of drug development has risen markedly in the past 30 years, with studies now reporting values exceeding US $800 million. As these spiralling costs threaten to make the development of new drugs increasingly unaffordable for both developing companies and consumers, it is clear that efforts should be made to address this problem. All aspects of the drug discovery and development process should be examined for potential cost savings, but I focus here in particular on the current regulatory requirements.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boston Consulting Group. A Revolution in R&D: How Genomics and Genetics are Transforming the Biopharmaceutical Industry. (Boston Consulting Group, Boston, Massachusetts, 2001).

  2. DiMasi, J., Hansen, R. W. & Grabowski, H. G. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J. Health Econ. 22, 151–185 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Relman, A. S. & Angell, M. America's other drug problem. The New Republic 16, 27–41 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Public Citizen. America's Other Drug Problem: a Briefing Book on the Rx Drug Debate (Public Citizen, Washington DC, 2002).

  5. Grabowski, H. G. & Vernon, J. M. Returns to R&D on new introductions in the 1980s. J. Health Econ. 13, 383–406 (1994).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Pharmacogenetics: Ethical Issues. (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London, 2003).

  7. Sherman, B. & Ross, P. The failure of industrialised research. Acumen J. Life Sci. 1, 121–127 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Harris, G. Where are all the new drugs? The New York Times (5 Oct 2003).

  9. Versteegh, L. R. Science and regulatory rituals associated with the drug development process. Food Drug Law J. 52, 155–161 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jefferys, D. B., Leakey, D., Lewis, J. A., Payne, S. & Rawlins, M. D. New active substances authorized in the United Kingdom between 1972 and 1994. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 45, 151–156 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Altman, D. G. & Bland, J. M. Statistical notes. Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise? BMJ 318, 1209 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Pocock, S. J. & Elbourne, D. R. Randomized trials or observational tribulations? N. Engl. J. Med. 342, 1907–1909 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Niblack, J. F. Why are drug development programs growing in size and cost? A view from industry. Food Drug Law J. 52, 151–154 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Peck, C. C., Rubin, D. B. & Sheiner, L. B. Hypothesis: a single clinical trial plus causal evidence of effectiveness is sufficient for drug approval. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 73, 481–490 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Institute of Medicine. Small Clinical Trials: Issues and Challenges (Institute of Medicine, Washington DC, 2001)

  16. Concato, J., Shah, N. & Horwitz, R. I. Randomised controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N. Engl. J. Med. 342, 1887–1892 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Barr, D. P. et al. Design considerations for AIDS trials. N. Engl. J. Med. 323, 1343–1348 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Senn, S. Statistical Issues in Drug Development (Wiley, Chichester, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lilford, R. J. & Brauanholtz, D. The statistical basis of public policy: a paradigm shift is overdue. BMJ 313, 603–607 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Speigelhalter, D. J., Myles, J. P., Jones, D. R. & Abrams, K. R. Bayesian methods in health technology assessment: a review. Health Technol. Assess. 4 (38), (2000).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Related links

Related links

DATABASES

Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man

Alzheimer's disease

Huntington's disease

Multiple sclerosis

Parkinson's disease

FURTHER INFORMATION

Alzheimer's Association

Hereditary Disease Foundation

Parkisnon's Disease Foundation

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rawlins, M. Cutting the cost of drug development?. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3, 360–364 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1347

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1347

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing