Keynote review: Is declining innovation in the pharmaceutical industry a myth?

Strategic Management Group, Laboratories, Pfizer Global Research and Development, Sandwich, Kent, UK.
Drug Discovery Today (Impact Factor: 6.69). 09/2005; 10(15):1031-9. DOI: 10.1016/S1359-6446(05)03524-5
Source: PubMed


Increasing the rate of innovation is a requirement to achieve much-needed advances in patient care, as well as to secure the future of the pharmaceutical industry. Currently, there is a perception in the external environment that pharmaceutical R&D is no longer innovative, fails to bring new drugs to market or, at best, produces a rising number of 'me-too' drugs with no advantage over existing treatments. In addition, the cost to discover and develop new medicines (i.e. cost per launch) has risen dramatically in recent years. The quoted development cost per medicine is a reality, and is not disputed here. However, data are provided that demonstrate that with regard to innovation rates, the current perception is wrong - although there have been, and continue to be, fluctuations in drug launches, there has been a steady increase in the number of new chemical entities launched, both in absolute numbers of FDA-approved medicines and in the proportion of priority reviews.

Full-text preview

Available from:
  • Source
    • "Considerable public and private expenditure on research and a high-level of transnational research infrastructure have resulted in oncology having the highest scientific output in the area of rare diseases [31,32]. Consequently, oncology represents an attractive indication for the pharmaceutical sector [33,34], resulting in the highest number of first and follow-on OMPs in development as well as approved [6]. Because of its dynamic and divergent nature, biomedical research can result in several competing hypotheses on the possible causes of diseases, and several promising targets and therapeutical approaches [35]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We determined whether the market exclusivity incentive of the European Orphan Drug Regulation results in a market monopoly or that absence of another Orphan Medicinal Product (OMP) for the same rare disorder, a so-called follow-on OMP, is a matter of time or market size. In the interest of rare disorder patients better understanding of the effect of the market exclusivity incentive on follow-on OMP development is warranted. First, the impact of various market-, product- and disease-related characteristics on follow-on OMP development in the EU was determined by comparing rare disorders with an approved OMP and at least one follow-on OMP (N = 26), with rare disorders with an approved OMP and no follow-on OMP (N = 18). Next, we determined whether manufacturers continued development of a follow-on OMP upon approval of the first OMP for the intended rare disorder. Since in the EU significant benefit of an OMP has to be established, we determined for each follow-on OMP for which development was continued on what grounds significant benefit was assumed by the sponsor. Data were collected from the public domain only. The likelihood of a rare disorder with an approved OMP to obtain at least one follow-on OMP development was strongly associated with disease prevalence, turnover of the first OMP, disease class, disease-specific scientific output and age of onset. Out of a total of 120 follow-on OMPs only one follow-on OMP could be identified for which development was discontinued upon approval of the first OMP for the same rare disorder. Only a substantial level of discontinuation of follow-on OMP development would have indicated the existence of a market monopoly. Moreover, sponsors that continued development of a follow-on OMP predominantly assumed that their product had an improved efficacy compared to the first approved OMP. This study provides evidence that absence of follow-on OMP development is a matter of time or market size, rather than that the market exclusivity incentive of the European Orphan Drug Regulation creates a market monopoly.
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2011 · Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
  • Source
    • "The process of chemical drug discovery is long and arduous that it begins from the search of a potential candidate to the development of a marketable drug. It can span the course of more than a decade, and can cost an average of 800 million USD in the USA [1] [2] [3]. Under special circumstances such as the search for effective drugs to treat AIDS, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in USA and other countries have encouraged an abbreviated process for drug testing and approval (called fast tracking) [4] [5]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Synthetic chemical drugs, while being efficacious in the clinical management of many diseases, are often associated with undesirable side effects in patients. It is now clear that the need of therapeutic intervention in many clinical conditions cannot be satisfactorily met by synthetic chemical drugs. Since the research and development of new chemical drugs remain time-consuming, capital-intensive and risky, much effort has been put in the search for alternative routes for drug discovery in China. This narrative review illustrates various approaches to the research and drug discovery in Chinese herbal medicine. Although this article focuses on Chinese traditional drugs, it is also conducive to the development of other traditional remedies and innovative drug discovery.
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2011 · Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
  • Source
    • "Though there have been several examples of me-too drugs providing a substantial increase in efficaciousness or decrease in toxicity – such as derivatives of the anthracycline chemotherapeutic daunorubicin [40] and the beta blocker propanolol [41] – very few FDA approved me-too drugs actually exhibit a significant enhancement of activity in comparison to their predecessors. In fact, of the 1035 drugs approved by the FDA between 1989 and 2000, only 361 contained new active substituents, and less than half of these received a priority FDA review due to the low likelihood of providing a significant advantage over existing treatments [42]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Merck's MK-0518, known as raltegravir, has recently become the first FDA-approved HIV-1 integrase (IN) inhibitor and has since risen to blockbuster drug status. Much research has in turn been conducted over the last few years aimed at recreating but optimizing the compound's interactions with the protein. Resulting me-too drugs have shown favorable pharmacokinetic properties and appear drug-like but, as expected, most have a highly similar interaction with IN to that of raltegravir. We propose that, based upon conclusions drawn from our docking studies illustrated herein, most of these me-too MK-0518 analogues may experience a low success rate against raltegravir-resistant HIV strains. As HIV has a very high mutational competence, the development of drugs with new mechanisms of inhibitory action and/or new active substituents may be a more successful route to take in the development of second- and third-generation IN inhibitors.
    Full-text · Article · Feb 2009 · Retrovirology
Show more