Daraxonrasib pancreatic cancer data fuel drug innovation debate

Daraxonrasib pancreatic cancer data from Revolution Medicine drew a standing ovation from more than 10,000 oncologists and drug developers in early June, according to a Fortune.com commentary. The commentary said survival curves for the drug suggested, for the first time, a possible route to nearly doubling survival in pancreatic cancer.

The moment spread widely on social media, the commentary said, and became a showcase for a broader argument: that U.S. drug policy has helped produce major medicines, but that the system is under pressure from health costs, China’s rise and artificial intelligence.

What is daraxonrasib for pancreatic cancer?

Daraxonrasib is a Revolution Medicine cancer drug discussed in the Fortune commentary in connection with pancreatic cancer survival data. The commentary did not provide trial-stage details, but said the data shown in early June pointed to a major survival advance.

The commentary used the daraxonrasib presentation to argue that U.S. drug development depends on a cycle it called the “Innovation Treadmill.” Under that model, companies receive a limited period to earn returns on new therapies before generic competition cuts prices after exclusivity ends.

As an example, the commentary cited Pfizer’s Lipitor, a statin it said reduces cardiovascular mortality by about 25%. It said Lipitor’s price fell by 90% within months after exclusivity ended and generic substitution began.

How does the U.S. drug innovation model work?

The Fortune commentary said drugmakers have about 14 years on average to recover development costs that can exceed $1 billion before a product loses exclusivity. It argued that this deadline pushes companies to keep searching for newer medicines.

The commentary also said the model makes branded drugs costly while patents remain in place. It cited an average insured American cost share of $120 a month for access to medicines and said U.S. patients often receive novel drugs earlier than patients in Europe, where access to new medicines can be 70% or less and delays can last a year or more.

The piece pointed to several scientific shifts that it said are expanding the number of treatable diseases. It said genome sequencing has fallen from nearly $3 billion during the Human Genome Project to about $200 today, helping researchers identify genetic drivers of disease.

It also cited cell and gene therapies, saying the first gene therapy won FDA approval in 2017 and that more than 30 such therapies have since been approved. The commentary said antibody-drug conjugates such as Enhertu and Padcev have extended survival in breast and bladder cancer by 10 and 15 months, respectively, and highlighted GLP-1 medicines and peptide drugs, including Icotyde, which was approved in March.

Why are China and AI part of the debate?

The commentary said China has built its own version of the innovation model over the past decade by lowering generic prices while expanding coverage for newer medicines. It said China has twice as many scientists as the United States, larger patient pools for clinical research, strong manufacturing and about a third of new drug candidates.

Artificial intelligence could speed drug development in target discovery, drug design and clinical trials, the commentary argued. It said drugs spend about seven years in clinical trials, including two years on paperwork, while much of the remaining time goes to finding patients for studies.

The commentary warned that rising hospital and services costs have pushed total health spending above $1,200 a month and increased pressure to cut drug spending. It criticized policies it said could weaken incentives, including the Inflation Reduction Act’s so-called Pill Penalty, and called for faster development tools such as reduced animal testing, broader master protocols, more flexible regulation for serious unmet needs, and more use of AI and electronic health records.

This story draws on original reporting from Fortune.