Although the drug remains on the market it carries such onerous restrictions due to its heart attack risk that its revenues have been decimated. Here are the drug’s historic revenues, culled from its annual reports:
- 2010: £391 million (through Q3)
- 2009: £771 million
- 2008: £805 million
- 2007: £1,219 million
- 2005: £1,300 million
- 2004: £1,100 million
- 2003: £900 million
- 2002: £809 million
- 2001: £707 million
- 2000: £462 million
- 1999: £89 million (launch year)
- Total: £10.2 billion ($16.3 billion)
Here are the estimated costs associated with the drug:
- $5.8 billion in legal charges $1 billion in development costs (the average the industry claims it takes to get a new drug to market).
- $3.7 billion in manufacturing costs (GSK’s factory costs are about 24 percent of sales).
- $4.7 billion in marketing costs (about 30 percent of sales).
- $1.1 billion in future product liability costs.
- Total: $16.3 billion
In 1999, shortly after the drug launched, Garnier asked his underlings:
“What exactly is the nature of the lipids problem with Avandia? … Is this not connected to the cardiovascular deaths? Why in the first place did you have such a high number of CV deaths while other glitazones [similar competing drugs] did not?
The cost of Garnier’s failure to follow up isn’t just $16 billion in wasted revenue. It’s reflected in GSK’s stock price: In 1999 it was $62. Today it’s trading around $39.
Let's not forget the deaths and injury caused!!
No comments:
Post a Comment