<code id='5643DBCC96'></code><style id='5643DBCC96'></style>
    • <acronym id='5643DBCC96'></acronym>
      <center id='5643DBCC96'><center id='5643DBCC96'><tfoot id='5643DBCC96'></tfoot></center><abbr id='5643DBCC96'><dir id='5643DBCC96'><tfoot id='5643DBCC96'></tfoot><noframes id='5643DBCC96'>

    • <optgroup id='5643DBCC96'><strike id='5643DBCC96'><sup id='5643DBCC96'></sup></strike><code id='5643DBCC96'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='5643DBCC96'><label id='5643DBCC96'><select id='5643DBCC96'><dt id='5643DBCC96'><span id='5643DBCC96'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='5643DBCC96'></u>
          <i id='5643DBCC96'><strike id='5643DBCC96'><tt id='5643DBCC96'><pre id='5643DBCC96'></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

          knowledge