Counting the cost of public and philanthropic R&D funding: the case of olaparib
Background Lack of transparency around manufacturing costs, who bears the bulk of research and development costs and how total costs relate to the pricing of products, continue to fuel debates. This paper considers the case of olaparib (Lynparza®), recently indicated for use among BRCA-mutant breast...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2022-12-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40545-022-00445-9 |
| _version_ | 1827593184526467072 |
|---|---|
| author | L. Schmidt O. Sehic C. Wild |
| author_facet | L. Schmidt O. Sehic C. Wild |
| author_sort | L. Schmidt |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background Lack of transparency around manufacturing costs, who bears the bulk of research and development costs and how total costs relate to the pricing of products, continue to fuel debates. This paper considers the case of olaparib (Lynparza®), recently indicated for use among BRCA-mutant breast cancer patients, and estimates the extent of public and philanthropic R&D funding. Methods We know from previous work that attempting to ascertain the amount of public and philanthropic funding using purely bibliographic sources (i.e., authors’ declarations of funding sources and amounts traced through funders) is limited. Since we knew that a publically funded research unit was pivotal in developing olaparib, we decided to supplement bibliographic data with a Freedom of Information request for administrative records on research funding data from this research centre. Research In terms of stages of product development, work conducted in the pre-clinical research stage was the most likely to report non-industry funding (> 90% of pre-clinical projects received public or philanthropic funding). Clinical trials were least likely to be funded through non-industry sources—although even here, contrary to the popular assertion that this is wholly industry-financed, we found public or philanthropic funding declared by 23% of clinical trials. Using information reported in the publications, we identified approximately £128 million of public and philanthropic funding that may have contributed to the development of olaparib. However, this amount was less than one-third of the total amount received by one research institute playing a pivotal role in product discovery. The Institute of Cancer Research reported receiving 38 funding awards to support olaparib work for BRCA-mutant breast cancer totalling over £400 million. Conclusions Government or charitable funding of pharmaceutical product development is difficult to trace using publicly available sources, due to incomplete information provided by authors and/or a lack of consistency in funding information made available by funders. This study has shown that a Freedom of Information request, in countries where such requests are supported, can provide information to help build the picture of financial support. In the example of olaparib, the funding amounts directly reported considerably exceeded amounts that could be ascertained using publically available bibliographic sources. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T02:06:51Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-9a280303e6d94428a477d9b8f7d6ceff |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2052-3211 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T02:06:51Z |
| publishDate | 2022-12-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice |
| spelling | doaj.art-9a280303e6d94428a477d9b8f7d6ceff2023-12-07T15:28:05ZengTaylor & Francis GroupJournal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice2052-32112022-12-0115110.1186/s40545-022-00445-912315353Counting the cost of public and philanthropic R&D funding: the case of olaparibL. Schmidt0O. Sehic1C. Wild2Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment GmbH,Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment GmbH,Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment GmbH,Background Lack of transparency around manufacturing costs, who bears the bulk of research and development costs and how total costs relate to the pricing of products, continue to fuel debates. This paper considers the case of olaparib (Lynparza®), recently indicated for use among BRCA-mutant breast cancer patients, and estimates the extent of public and philanthropic R&D funding. Methods We know from previous work that attempting to ascertain the amount of public and philanthropic funding using purely bibliographic sources (i.e., authors’ declarations of funding sources and amounts traced through funders) is limited. Since we knew that a publically funded research unit was pivotal in developing olaparib, we decided to supplement bibliographic data with a Freedom of Information request for administrative records on research funding data from this research centre. Research In terms of stages of product development, work conducted in the pre-clinical research stage was the most likely to report non-industry funding (> 90% of pre-clinical projects received public or philanthropic funding). Clinical trials were least likely to be funded through non-industry sources—although even here, contrary to the popular assertion that this is wholly industry-financed, we found public or philanthropic funding declared by 23% of clinical trials. Using information reported in the publications, we identified approximately £128 million of public and philanthropic funding that may have contributed to the development of olaparib. However, this amount was less than one-third of the total amount received by one research institute playing a pivotal role in product discovery. The Institute of Cancer Research reported receiving 38 funding awards to support olaparib work for BRCA-mutant breast cancer totalling over £400 million. Conclusions Government or charitable funding of pharmaceutical product development is difficult to trace using publicly available sources, due to incomplete information provided by authors and/or a lack of consistency in funding information made available by funders. This study has shown that a Freedom of Information request, in countries where such requests are supported, can provide information to help build the picture of financial support. In the example of olaparib, the funding amounts directly reported considerably exceeded amounts that could be ascertained using publically available bibliographic sources.http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40545-022-00445-9research fundingpublic fundingreturn on investmentpharmaceutical r&d |
| spellingShingle | L. Schmidt O. Sehic C. Wild Counting the cost of public and philanthropic R&D funding: the case of olaparib Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice research funding public funding return on investment pharmaceutical r&d |
| title | Counting the cost of public and philanthropic R&D funding: the case of olaparib |
| title_full | Counting the cost of public and philanthropic R&D funding: the case of olaparib |
| title_fullStr | Counting the cost of public and philanthropic R&D funding: the case of olaparib |
| title_full_unstemmed | Counting the cost of public and philanthropic R&D funding: the case of olaparib |
| title_short | Counting the cost of public and philanthropic R&D funding: the case of olaparib |
| title_sort | counting the cost of public and philanthropic r d funding the case of olaparib |
| topic | research funding public funding return on investment pharmaceutical r&d |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40545-022-00445-9 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT lschmidt countingthecostofpublicandphilanthropicrdfundingthecaseofolaparib AT osehic countingthecostofpublicandphilanthropicrdfundingthecaseofolaparib AT cwild countingthecostofpublicandphilanthropicrdfundingthecaseofolaparib |