<code id='185ECAAEBA'></code><style id='185ECAAEBA'></style>
    • <acronym id='185ECAAEBA'></acronym>
      <center id='185ECAAEBA'><center id='185ECAAEBA'><tfoot id='185ECAAEBA'></tfoot></center><abbr id='185ECAAEBA'><dir id='185ECAAEBA'><tfoot id='185ECAAEBA'></tfoot><noframes id='185ECAAEBA'>

    • <optgroup id='185ECAAEBA'><strike id='185ECAAEBA'><sup id='185ECAAEBA'></sup></strike><code id='185ECAAEBA'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='185ECAAEBA'><label id='185ECAAEBA'><select id='185ECAAEBA'><dt id='185ECAAEBA'><span id='185ECAAEBA'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='185ECAAEBA'></u>
          <i id='185ECAAEBA'><strike id='185ECAAEBA'><tt id='185ECAAEBA'><pre id='185ECAAEBA'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          00:00
          00:00 00:00 LIVE
          buffering
          Replay
          LIVE
          00:00 / 00:00
          LIVE
          CC
          Opacity :
          Share:
          Close

          explore

          author:knowledge    - browse:8
          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

          focus