ArticlePloS one2020
Public investments in the clinical development of bedaquiline.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing timelines and evidence available to support new TB, HIV, and HCV drug approvals: The same, only different.PloS one · 2022Trial
- Future-proofing tuberculosis therapy: framework for concurrent drug and resistance testing development.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2026Review
- Article
- Mechanisms Considering Public Investment in Pricing and Reimbursement Decisions of Medicines and Other Health Technologies: A Scoping Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- Innovative Bedaquiline-Based Delivery Systems for Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Treatment.Infectious disorders drug targets · 2025Review
- TB vaccine development: monitoring international patent filings to anticipate access challenges.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- The priority review voucher: a misconceived quid pro quo.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Ending tuberculosis: challenges and opportunities.Frontiers in tuberculosis · 2024Review
- An Epidemic of Drug Resistance: Tuberculosis in the Twenty-First Century.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Bedaquiline resistance probability to guide treatment decision making for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis: insights from a qualitative study.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Scaling up target regimens for tuberculosis preventive treatment in Brazil and South Africa: An analysis of costs and cost-effectiveness.PLoS medicine · 2022Article
- Recently developed drugs for the treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis: a research and development case study.BMJ global health · 2022Review
- EU FP7 research funding for an orphan drug (Orfadin®) and vaccine (Hep C) development: a success and a failure?Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn 2012, bedaquiline became the first new treatment from a novel class to be approved for tuberculosis in nearly five decades and is now a core component of the standard of care for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. In addition to the originator pharmaceutical company, Janssen, a range of governmental and non-profit entities have contributed to the development of bedaquiline. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe identified various avenues of public investments in the development of bedaquiline: direct funding of clinical trials and a donation programme, tax credits and deductions, and revenues resulting from the priority review voucher (PRV) awarded to the originator. Data on investments were gathered through contact with study leads and/or funders; for non-responses, published average costs were substituted. The originator company's expenses were estimated by similar methods. Tax credits and deductions were calculated based on estimated originator trial costs and donation expenses. The value of the PRV was estimated by application of a published model.
resultsPublic contributions through clinical trials funding were estimated at US$109-252 million, tax credits at US$22-36 million, tax deductions at US$8-27 million, administration of a donation programme at US$5 million, PRV revenues at US$300-400 million. Total public investments were US$455-747 million and originator investments were US$90-240 million (if capitalized and risk-adjusted, US$647-1,201 million and US$292-772 million, respectively).
conclusionsEstimating the investments in the development of a medicine can inform discussions regarding fair pricing and future drug development. We estimated that total public investments exceeded the originator's by a factor of 1.6-5.1.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.