Wise Investment? Modeling Industry Profitability and Risk of Targeted Chemotherapy for Incurable Solid Cancers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: Pharmaceutical development involves substantial financial risk. This risk, rising development costs, and the promotion of continued research and development have been cited as major drivers in the progressive increase in drug prices. Currently, cost-effective analyses are being used to determine the value of treatment. However, cost-effective analyses practically function as a threshold for value and do not directly address the rationale for drug prices. We set out to create a functional model for industry price decisions and clarify the minimum acceptable profitability of new drugs. METHODS: Assuming that industry should only invest in profitable ventures, we employed a linear cost-volume-profit breakeven analysis to equate initial capital investment and risk and post-drug-approval profits, where drug development represents the bulk of investment. A Markov decision analysis model was also used to define the relationships between investment events risk. A systematic literature search was performed to determine event probabilities, clinical trial costs, and total expenses as inputs into the model. Disease-specific inputs, current market size across regions, and lengths of treatment for cancer types were also included. RESULTS: With development of single novel chemotherapies costing from $802 to $1,042 million (2002 US dollars), pharmaceutical profits should range from $4.3 to $5.2 billion, with an expected rate of return on investment of 11% annually. However, diversification across cancer types for chemotherapy can reduce the minimum required profit to less than $3 billion. For optimal diversification, industry should study four tumor types per drug; however, nonprofit organizations could tolerate eight parallel development tracks to minimize the risk of development failure. Assuming that pharmaceutical companies hold exclusive rights for drug sales for only 5 years after market approval, the minimum required profit per drug per month per patient ranges from $294 for end-stage lung cancer to $3,231 for end-stage renal cell carcinoma. CONCLUSION: Pharmaceutical development in oncology is costly, with substantial risk, but is also highly profitable. Minimum acceptable profits per drug per month of treatment per patient vary with prevalence of disease, but they should be less than $5,000 per month of treatment in the developed world. Minimum acceptable profits may be lower for treatments with additional efficacy in the earlier stages of a tumor type. However, this type of event could not be statistically modeled.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».