2021
DOI: 10.1007/s11301-021-00218-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Determinants of radical drug innovation: a systematic literature review

Abstract: Radical drug innovations are of great importance to pharmaceutical firms and public health. Understanding the determinants involved in successful radical drug innovations is key to increasing this type of output in the future. The objective of this review is to search the literature for key firm-level determinants of radical drug innovation. Following a systematic literature review approach, we considered more than 4100 peer-reviewed journal articles and PhD theses, of which we included 38 in the narrative syn… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 148 publications
(250 reference statements)
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Even among those who espouse innovation, there are many who insist it must be of significant scale to justify attention: this manifests itself in a reserved attitude to incremental innovation, sometimes depicted as a disservice to patients and as a mechanism for industry to claim unjustified support [ 28 ].The Commission concedes that incremental innovation “can as well be something good”, but insists that the focus—and thus the highest level of incentives—should be on innovation for unmet medical needs—which opens up another area of considerable divergence of views (see below, “unmet medical need”) [ 5 ]. Luxembourg, as a small country, claims to follow an approach which is pragmatic and flexible, accepting incremental innovation even for something relatively simple but that provides ease to the patient or the healthcare provider, such as vaccines that do not need deep-cold storage, or inhalers that are easier to use and improve compliance, or a methodological shift to a more comprehensive approach to a disease—including prevention and vaccination.…”
Section: Discussion: Different Challenges and Opportunitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even among those who espouse innovation, there are many who insist it must be of significant scale to justify attention: this manifests itself in a reserved attitude to incremental innovation, sometimes depicted as a disservice to patients and as a mechanism for industry to claim unjustified support [ 28 ].The Commission concedes that incremental innovation “can as well be something good”, but insists that the focus—and thus the highest level of incentives—should be on innovation for unmet medical needs—which opens up another area of considerable divergence of views (see below, “unmet medical need”) [ 5 ]. Luxembourg, as a small country, claims to follow an approach which is pragmatic and flexible, accepting incremental innovation even for something relatively simple but that provides ease to the patient or the healthcare provider, such as vaccines that do not need deep-cold storage, or inhalers that are easier to use and improve compliance, or a methodological shift to a more comprehensive approach to a disease—including prevention and vaccination.…”
Section: Discussion: Different Challenges and Opportunitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In line with Kraus et al (2020), we developed the data extraction form before the extraction process started and used the same form for every paper in scope, so the same type of information was extracted from all works. In the absence of such a standardized form, there is a risk that scholars subjectively extract information that they perceive as relevant while reviewing each study (Stiller et al , 2021). As such, our analytical approach reduced the risk of bias (Kitchenham, 2004).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, using a rigorous scientific methodology for review can reduce the potential for such biases and errors (Cook et al , 1997). This is the main advantage of a system compared to a narrative literature review (Stiller et al , 2021). Because of its clear functional logic, this paper is following the suggested five-step review process of Denyer and Tranfield (2009, pp.…”
Section: Review Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations