Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34368939›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2021

How Much Does It Cost to Research and Develop a New Drug? A Systematic Review and Assessment.

Michael Schlander, Karla Hernandez-Villafuerte, Chih-Yuan Cheng, Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz, Michael Baumann

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 139 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
139citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
61.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

139 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 332 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Repurposing biosimilars, rethinking costs: a framework for sustainable drug pricing for repurposed bevacizumab for intravitreal injections.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Leveraging Mendelian randomization to inform drug discovery and development for ischemic stroke.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

79 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael Schlander *German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. m.schlander@dkfz.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3489-5856
Karla Hernandez-Villafuerte *German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6685-1903
Chih-Yuan ChengGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6220-0524
Jorge Mestre-FerrandizUniversidad Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0529-1321
Michael BaumannGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9340-974X
German Cancer Research Center · DEUniversidad Carlos III de Madrid · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDebate over the viability of the current commercial research and development (R&D) model is ongoing. A controversial theme is the cost of bringing a new molecular entity (NME) to market.

objectiveOur aim was to evaluate the range and suitability of published R&D cost estimates as to the degree to which they represent the actual costs of industry.

methodsWe provided a systematic literature review based on articles found in the Pubmed, Embase and EconLit electronic databases, and in a previously published review. Articles published before March 2020 that estimated the total R&D costs were included (22 articles with 45 unique cost estimates). We included only literature in which the methods used to collect the information and to estimate the R&D costs were clearly described; therefore, three reports were excluded. We extracted average pre-launch R&D costs per NME and converted the values to 2019 US dollars (US$) using the gross domestic product (GDP) price deflator. We appraised the suitability of the R&D estimated costs by using a scoring system that captures three domains: (1) how success rates and development time used for cost estimation were obtained; (2) whether the study considered potential sources contributing to the variation in R&D costs; and (3) what the components of the cost estimation were.

resultsEstimates of total average capitalized pre-launch R&D costs varied widely, ranging from $161 million to $4.54 billion (2019 US$). Therapeutic area-specific estimates were highest for anticancer drugs (between $944 million and $4.54 billion). Our analysis identified a trend of increasing R&D costs per NME over time but did not reveal a relation between cost estimates and study ranking when the suitability scores were assessed. We found no evidence of an increase in suitability scores over time.

conclusionThere is no universally correct answer regarding how much it costs, on average, to research and develop an NME. Future studies should explicitly address previously neglected variables, which likely explain some variability in estimates, and consider the trade-off between the transparency and public accessibility of data and their specificity. Use of our proposed suitability scoring system may assist in addressing such issues.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsPharmaceutical PreparationsCosts and Cost AnalysisHumansAntineoplastic AgentsPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID34368939
PMCPMC8516790
OpenAlexW3187980261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.