<code id='0ECEA925DB'></code><style id='0ECEA925DB'></style>
    • <acronym id='0ECEA925DB'></acronym>
      <center id='0ECEA925DB'><center id='0ECEA925DB'><tfoot id='0ECEA925DB'></tfoot></center><abbr id='0ECEA925DB'><dir id='0ECEA925DB'><tfoot id='0ECEA925DB'></tfoot><noframes id='0ECEA925DB'>

    • <optgroup id='0ECEA925DB'><strike id='0ECEA925DB'><sup id='0ECEA925DB'></sup></strike><code id='0ECEA925DB'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='0ECEA925DB'><label id='0ECEA925DB'><select id='0ECEA925DB'><dt id='0ECEA925DB'><span id='0ECEA925DB'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='0ECEA925DB'></u>
          <i id='0ECEA925DB'><strike id='0ECEA925DB'><tt id='0ECEA925DB'><pre id='0ECEA925DB'></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