<code id='371EEEAB1A'></code><style id='371EEEAB1A'></style>
    • <acronym id='371EEEAB1A'></acronym>
      <center id='371EEEAB1A'><center id='371EEEAB1A'><tfoot id='371EEEAB1A'></tfoot></center><abbr id='371EEEAB1A'><dir id='371EEEAB1A'><tfoot id='371EEEAB1A'></tfoot><noframes id='371EEEAB1A'>

    • <optgroup id='371EEEAB1A'><strike id='371EEEAB1A'><sup id='371EEEAB1A'></sup></strike><code id='371EEEAB1A'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='371EEEAB1A'><label id='371EEEAB1A'><select id='371EEEAB1A'><dt id='371EEEAB1A'><span id='371EEEAB1A'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='371EEEAB1A'></u>
          <i id='371EEEAB1A'><strike id='371EEEAB1A'><tt id='371EEEAB1A'><pre id='371EEEAB1A'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          
          WSS
          Adam's take main illustration
          Molly Ferguson/STAT

          The approval Friday of Bluebird Bio’s gene therapy for sickle cell disease should have been a momentum-swinging achievement for the long-struggling biotech. Instead, the company mispriced its new drug and fumbled a pivotal financial lifeline.

          The consequences of these strategic blunders — arguably, self-inflicted — could imperil Bluebird’s independence, perhaps even its survival.

          advertisement

          Bluebird priced Lyfgenia at $3.1 million, while Vertex Pharmaceutical set the cost of Casgevy, its competing sickle cell treatment also approved on Friday, at $2.2 million. Not only is Lyfgenia significantly more expensive, but its prescribing label carries a “black box” safety warning, which requires patients undergo regular blood monitoring for cancer risk. Casgevy has no similar monitoring requirement.

          Get unlimited access to award-winning journalism and exclusive events.

          Subscribe Log In

          Leave your comment

          Please enter your name
          Please enter your comment

          fashion