Comment by s1artibartfast
2 days ago
Keytruda revenue is 30+ billion per year. If your new drug performs 1% better than Keytruda, that revenue becomes yours. If your drug perfroms 1% worse, you become a failure in the statistics.
2 days ago
Keytruda revenue is 30+ billion per year. If your new drug performs 1% better than Keytruda, that revenue becomes yours. If your drug perfroms 1% worse, you become a failure in the statistics.
That isn’t how a rational person would pursue this - it costs $1B to make a drug start to finish, and there’s no reason to believe your new mechanism will work.
If you’re talking about copycat mechanisms, that is fine but we’re still left discussing successes when OP is about failures
Why isnt it rational?
You spend the 1 billion for a ticket to win 30 billion/yr for the next several years.
Is it rational to spend 1$ to make $100 10% of the time? A 99% failure rate would be break even.
> Why isnt it rational?
You can spend that $1B to win a new category or that same money to maybe be non-inferior to Keytruda, but maybe fail. I think copycat design does happen, but I mostly notice it when drugs are being developed simultaneously at different firms. Perhaps it happens more beyond this, I'm unsure.
Otherwise, it makes more sense to try to find an indication where you are approved and have no competition.
2 replies →