Article

Development of new generation influenza vaccines: Recipes for success?

Vacceleron, Jenalaan 18c, 3584 CK Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: .
Vaccine (Impact Factor: 3.49). 10/2012; 30(51). DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.09.071
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT As infectious diseases cause approximately 25% of the annual global mortality, vaccines are found to be a time proven and promising response to infectious disease need. However, like for pharmaceutical small molecules, vaccine development is lengthy, risky and resource demanding. Faced with an attrition rate estimated around 80%, key opinion leaders were interviewed with the question: is there a recipe for success?

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Esther S Pronker, Mar 27, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
67 Views
 · 
28 Downloads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To date, vaccination is the most cost-effective strategy to combat infectious diseases. Recently, a productivity gap affects the pharmaceutical industry. The productivity gap describes the situation whereby the invested resources within an industry do not match the expected product turn-over. While risk profiles (combining research and development timelines and transition rates) have been published for new chemical entities (NCE), little is documented on vaccine development. The objective is to calculate risk profiles for vaccines targeting human infectious diseases. A database was actively compiled to include all vaccine projects in development from 1998 to 2009 in the pre-clinical development phase, clinical trials phase I, II and III up to Market Registration. The average vaccine, taken from the preclinical phase, requires a development timeline of 10.71 years and has a market entry probability of 6%. Stratification by disease area reveals pandemic influenza vaccine targets as lucrative. Furthermore, vaccines targeting acute infectious diseases and prophylactic vaccines have shown to have a lower risk profile when compared to vaccines targeting chronic infections and therapeutic applications. In conclusion; these statistics apply to vaccines targeting human infectious diseases. Vaccines targeting cancer, allergy and autoimmune diseases require further analysis. Additionally, this paper does not address orphan vaccines targeting unmet medical needs, whether projects are in-licensed or self-originated and firm size and experience. Therefore, it remains to be investigated how these - and other - variables influence the vaccine risk profile. Although we find huge differences between the risk profiles for vaccine and NCE; vaccines outperform NCE when it comes to development timelines.
    PLoS ONE 03/2013; 8(3):e57755. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0057755 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This exploratory qualitative article analyzes the potentially rate-limiting factors affecting value chain dynamics during adjuvanted-vaccine development. Adjuvants are considered immunostimulating substances that can be added to a vaccine. Although adjuvants have the potential to elicit adverse reactions, they also offer certain benefits. After approximately 90 years of R&D, why have only four adjuvants been approved? Although ample literature is available describing the risks and benefits, it remains unclear as to how these potentially rate-limiting factors compare. Experts – representing knowledge institutes, industry and regulatory/public health authorities – were approached in order to collect a unique weighted-ranking dataset on rate limiting factors. Based on the principal–agent theory, there is a partial conflict of interests between the internal perceptions on the challenges faced. Additionally, content analysis reveals four underlying social constructs influencing this perception, namely: attitudes towards risk management, innovation strategy, valuation and funding. This study was designed to explore the topic of rate-limiting factors, and not intended to solve the issues. Moreover we offer previously unpublished and practical insights on the topic, and offer a validated starting point for further research. Ultimately, we would advocate more transparency on reasons for project discontinuation; sharing lessons learned from failed attempts could prove valuable for advancing the field of virosciences.
    Technological Forecasting and Social Change 05/2014; 90. DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2014.04.017 · 1.71 Impact Factor