does anyone have any number?
I see people posting this: As it stands, industry experts predict that almost 40% of the $50 billion spend annually by the pharmaceutical industry is on drugs that will eventually be ditched because of the toxicity that arises during human trials.
that would be 20B. But that number is not number for failed 2D liver trials. That is the number for failed approval or drug which is too toxic. The toxicity trials running as pre-trials or P1. How much company spend for for that? I have no clue. 1M-10M? They have to prove the drug is not toxic before P2 starts as far as i know.
So it may save company 500M because they figure out sooner then before the drug is toxic but for NVIV it will be just the income from selling 3D tissue for Preclinical trials.
I don't see any major income coming from this.
From Zacks :Initiating coverage of Organovo
We have built a year-10 discounted cash flow (DCF) model to value Organovo. We assume that the company can secure one new research alliance every nine to twelve months. We expect that these deals will provide $1 to $2 million in upfront funding, along with backend milestones around $10 million and low-single digit royalties on sales. We also expect that Organovo will launch its first commercial product in 2014, which is expected to be a liver toxicology assay kit. Traditional cellular assays are a fast growing segment of the overall $40+ billion life science tools market. We believe that functional 3D cellular assays that can deliver superior biology can gain meaningful market share in this $14+ billion cell biology segment. We see this as a $20 to $30 million opportunity for Organovo in liver toxicology alone. New assays essentially add tens-of-millions to the overall potential.
Remember in the big article in Popular Science ,, The amount of money spent on testing was 39 billion ,,,, if a drug company has a billion dollar drug ,its considered a homerun ... so if Onvo can garner just a small piece of this industry it will go straight to the bottom line ..... It is a BIG DEAL
Sentiment: Strong Buy
While I would agree that it is premature to go into too much detail about future revenues, I don't know why the entire $50 billion you suggest spent annually by the pharma firms would not apply to ONVO's liver assays. All drugs whether they eventually succeed or fail will need to have a toxicity answer before moving forward.
And this is only the beginning!
Sentiment: Strong Buy
simply because this 20B ( have no idea where you coming from with 50B) is the price for P1/P2/P3 trials and rejection. That number is their due to live toxicity at the end of P3. The PRE-CLINICAL trials are tested on 2D/ 3D tissue. What are you not getting?
The question i have is how much companies spend on 2D liver tissue in preclinical. Nothing else matter. From P1 the trials are performed on humans.
I don't believe income from pharmaceutical testing will be huge. Don't know the numbers. Today's announcement has a different interest for me. How long until we can use printed liver tissue for transplant in cirrhosis and hepatitis patients? I don't know that either, but I suspect we just took an important step forward.
Good questions yzzycz, but not time to talk about revenues. They are not ready for that, however what happened today brings that closer (by 2+ months) to a certainty. An important scientific validation of their product happened today and that will change pharma's revenue structure. I hope Organovo's contract team is as good as the rest of the company, royalties are what I want to know about.
Great post bomba_travel.
I think you are asking a good question, but that is difficult to answer because the economics which ultimately determine price equilibrium will evolve over time. I agree with you, in a sense, that there is a logic discrepancy in using $20B in failed drug development spending as the market potential benchmark, when we're also advertising that we can dramatically reduce those costs by getting better toxicity screens in earlier (less expensive) stages.
However, I also think that determining market potential based on what pharma *currently* pays in preclinical stages is also illogical. The idea is that substantially more would be spent in preclinical stages if toxicity can be known more concretely with the technology.
If the technology works, there will be demand, no doubt about it. If there's demand, there will be revenue.. and the fact we're talking about bona-fide revenue after ~2yrs as a public bio-tech company is extremely exciting. Even if the pricing for this one revenue stream doesn't work out to be a "bread-and-butter" scenario, it's still revenue, and it would help fund many other streams, which would fund others, and so on..
That is the goal anyway, and mgmt has so far delivered on every milestone they've laid out. I'm optimistic and long (obviously), but am personally very much anxious to hear of follow-on partnerships vs. new partnerships. This would be the first and clear indication that "It works!" and that pharma sees favorable economics from the technology. When the product launches next year, we'll also get insight into what the company thinks the market potential really is.
Humble thoughts and opinions, GLTA.
my point is: Does anyone know how much preclinical cost?
Types of preclinical research
Each class of product may undergo different types of preclinical research. For instance, drugs may undergo pharmacodynamics (what the drug does to the body) (PD), pharmacokinetics (what the body does to the drug) (PK), ADME, and toxicity testing through animal testing. This data allows researchers to allometrically estimate a safe starting dose of the drug for clinical trials in humans
So they can do it on 3D liver now i guess. But how much that will be? How many companies will do it per year? 100? 200? How many 3D tissue they need? 10? 100?
ONVO have to answer this questions. Otherwise you investing into something you know s... about...same as myself.