<code id='CA290C98EF'></code><style id='CA290C98EF'></style>
    • <acronym id='CA290C98EF'></acronym>
      <center id='CA290C98EF'><center id='CA290C98EF'><tfoot id='CA290C98EF'></tfoot></center><abbr id='CA290C98EF'><dir id='CA290C98EF'><tfoot id='CA290C98EF'></tfoot><noframes id='CA290C98EF'>

    • <optgroup id='CA290C98EF'><strike id='CA290C98EF'><sup id='CA290C98EF'></sup></strike><code id='CA290C98EF'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='CA290C98EF'><label id='CA290C98EF'><select id='CA290C98EF'><dt id='CA290C98EF'><span id='CA290C98EF'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='CA290C98EF'></u>
          <i id='CA290C98EF'><strike id='CA290C98EF'><tt id='CA290C98EF'><pre id='CA290C98EF'></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