<code id='AC8014E34A'></code><style id='AC8014E34A'></style>
    • <acronym id='AC8014E34A'></acronym>
      <center id='AC8014E34A'><center id='AC8014E34A'><tfoot id='AC8014E34A'></tfoot></center><abbr id='AC8014E34A'><dir id='AC8014E34A'><tfoot id='AC8014E34A'></tfoot><noframes id='AC8014E34A'>

    • <optgroup id='AC8014E34A'><strike id='AC8014E34A'><sup id='AC8014E34A'></sup></strike><code id='AC8014E34A'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='AC8014E34A'><label id='AC8014E34A'><select id='AC8014E34A'><dt id='AC8014E34A'><span id='AC8014E34A'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='AC8014E34A'></u>
          <i id='AC8014E34A'><strike id='AC8014E34A'><tt id='AC8014E34A'><pre id='AC8014E34A'></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