Changing R&D models in research-based pharmaceutical companies

Abstract

New drugs serving unmet medical needs are one of the key value drivers of research-based pharmaceutical companies. The efficiency of research and development (R&D), defined as the successful approval and launch of new medicines (output) in the rate of the monetary investments required for R&D (input), has declined since decades. We aimed to identify, analyze and describe the factors that impact the R&D efficiency. Based on publicly available information, we reviewed the R&D models of major research-based pharmaceutical companies and analyzed the key challenges and success factors of a sustainable R&D output. We calculated that the R&D efficiencies of major research-based pharmaceutical companies were in the range of USD 3.2–32.3 billion (2006–2014). As these numbers challenge the model of an innovation-driven pharmaceutical industry, we analyzed the concepts that companies are following to increase their R&D efficiencies: (A) Activities to reduce portfolio and project risk, (B) activities to reduce R&D costs, and (C) activities to increase the innovation potential. While category A comprises measures such as portfolio management and licensing, measures grouped in category B are outsourcing and risk-sharing in late-stage development. Companies made diverse steps to increase their innovation potential and open innovation, exemplified by open source, innovation centers, or crowdsourcing, plays a key role in doing so. In conclusion, research-based pharmaceutical companies need to be aware of the key factors, which impact the rate of innovation, R&D cost and probability of success. Depending on their company strategy and their R&D set-up they can opt for one of the following open innovators: knowledge creator, knowledge integrator or knowledge leverager.

Using Big Data to Discover Diagnostics and Therapeutics for Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases

“…36 Further, the cost of developing a new drug remains high, ranging from $3 billion to more than $30 billion per approval between 2006 and 2014, 37 reflecting the complex challenges involved in meeting current scientific, regulatory and commercial requirements. An over-reliance on in vitro high-throughput drug screening (HTS)* and the “one-drug-one-target-one-disease” concept is cited by some as a contributing factor in the abundance of late-stage R&D failures in recent years, many of which were the result of poor efficacy and unexpected toxicity of lead compounds developed using HTS technology.…”

Pharmaceutical patents: reconciling the human right to health with the incentive to invent

“…Priority Review Vouchers awarded by the FDA to sponsors of product applications relevant to tropical diseases [67], US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which has already awarded US$85 billion [68], and the Qualified Infectious Disease Product program that facilitates fast-track designation [69]. By contrast, the prospect of higher drug prices could trigger novel drug development, particularly in circumstances where pharmaceutical companies (such as GSK, Merck, Pfizer and Takeda) have reduced R&D spending [70] yet numbers of drugs being approved is growing (59 in 2018 compared with 21 in 2010), many being orphan drugs [71]. The Orphan Drug Act has been criticized for enabling firms to charge higher prices for orphan drugs in 'salami sliced' disease indications [72].…”

Cancer research in the United States: A critical review of current status and proposal for alternative models

“…Proposal for a New Cancer Research Model/Kantarjian et al Cancer 2) shifting the drug cancer discovery process from internal research and development (R&D) to building >75% of their pipelines by buying out smaller biotechnology companies 73,74 ; and 3) a significant buildup of administrative personnel at most large pharmaceutical companies, leading to increasing R&D costs. [75][76][77] At this point, a brief history of CROs is in order.…”

“…With the plethora of cancer targets, the explosion of the biotechnology industry ripe for timely buyouts by larger companies, and the unlimited potential for financial profits, the pharmaceutical industry implemented gradual steps to tighten its control of the research process, as well as the communication of research results through publications, advertisements, presence at cancer meetings, and other forums . Additional steps implemented by the drug industry that increased the cost of research included: 1) outsourcing the monitoring of research to contract (or clinical) research organizations (CROs) ; 2) shifting the drug cancer discovery process from internal research and development (R&D) to building >75% of their pipelines by buying out smaller biotechnology companies; and 3) a significant buildup of administrative personnel at most large pharmaceutical companies, leading to increasing R&D costs …”