Pharmaceutical Development Phases: A Duration Analysis

Abrantes-Metz, Rosa M.; Adams, Christopher; Metz, Albert

doi:10.2139/ssrn.607941

Cited by 41 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The duration from entry into human clinical testing (Phase I trials) until market launch can vary widely across individual drugs and broader therapeutic classes, but averages approximately eight years (Abrantes-Metz et al, 2005; Adams and Brantner, 2006; DiMasi, 2001). Phase I trials evaluate safety of the molecule in small numbers of healthy human volunteers, and typically take several months to complete.…”

Section: Data and Construction Of Analytic Panelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Market size and innovation: Effects of Medicare Part D on pharmaceutical research and development

Blume‐Kohout

Sood

2013

Journal of Public Economics

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent evidence suggests that Medicare Part D increased prescription drug use among seniors, and increased pharmaceutical firms’ revenues from sales. Previous studies also indicate that increases in market size induce pharmaceutical innovation. This paper assesses the impact of the Medicare Part D legislation on pharmaceutical research and development (R&D), using time-series data on the number of drugs entering preclinical and clinical development by therapeutic class and phase. We find that the passage and implementation of Medicare Part D is associated with significant increases in pharmaceutical R&D for therapeutic classes with higher Medicare market share.

show abstract

Section: Data and Construction Of Analytic Panelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Market size and innovation: Effects of Medicare Part D on pharmaceutical research and development

Blume‐Kohout

Sood

2013

Journal of Public Economics

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Pharmaprojects database is considered fairly complete for human clinical trials, though it may miss some drugs in preclinical development (Abrantes‐Metz, Adams, & Metz, ; Adams & Brantner, ). But, even if phase I trials are underreported in Pharmaprojects, there is no reason to suspect a systematic bias in reporting across drug classes that corresponds with lagged percentage changes in NIH funding for research focused on the drug classes’ corresponding disease indications.…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Targeted, Disease‐Specific Public Research Funding Influence Pharmaceutical Innovation?

Blume‐Kohout

2012

J Policy Anal Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public funding for biomedical research is often justified as a means to encourage development of more (and better) treatments for disease. However, few studies have investigated the relationship between these expenditures and downstream pharmaceutical innovation. In particular, although recent analyses have shown a clear contribution of federally funded research to drug development, there exists little evidence to suggest that increasing targeted public research funding for any specific disease will result in increased development of drugs to treat that disease. This paper evaluates the impact of changes in the allocation of U. S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) extramural research grant funding across diseases on the number of drugs entering clinical testing to treat those diseases, using new longitudinal data on NIH extramural research grants awarded by disease for years 1975 through 2006. Results from a variety of distributed lag models indicate that a sustained 10 percent increase in targeted, disease-specific NIH funding yields approximately a 4. 5 percent increase in the number of related drugs entering clinical testing (phase I trials) after a lag of up to 12 years, reflecting the continuing influence of NIH funding on discovery and testing of new molecular entities. In contrast, we do not see evidence that increases in NIH extramural grant funding for research focused on specific diseases will increase the number of related treatments investigated in the more expensive, late-stage (phase III) trials.

show abstract

“…Adams and Brantner (2003) and Abrantes-Metz et al (2006) analyze drugs in clinical trials around the world between 1989 and 2002. They find that success rates and durations can vary substantially across observable characteristics of the drugs, including primary indication, originating company, route of administration, and chemistry.…”

Section: Innovation In Pharmaceuticalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Breath of Fresh Air? Firm Type, Scale, Scope, and Selection Effects in Drug Development

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T his paper compares the innovation performance of established pharmaceutical firms and biotech companies, controlling for differences in the scale and scope of research. We develop a structural model to analyze more than 3,000 drug research and development projects advanced to preclinical and clinical trials in the United States between 1980 and 1994. Key to our approach is careful attention to the issue of selection. Firms choose which compounds to advance into clinical trials. This choice depends not only on the technical promise of the compound, but also on commercial considerations such as the expected profitability of the market or concerns about product cannibalization. After controlling for selection, we find that (a) even after controlling for scale and scope in research, established pharmaceutical firms are more innovative than newly entered biotech firms; (b) older biotech firms display selection behaviors and innovation performances similar to established pharmaceutical firms; and (c) compounds licensed during preclinical trials are as likely to succeed as internal compounds of the licensor, which is inconsistent with the "lemons" hypothesis in technology markets.

show abstract

Pharmaceutical Development Phases: A Duration Analysis

Cited by 41 publications

References 4 publications

Market size and innovation: Effects of Medicare Part D on pharmaceutical research and development

Market size and innovation: Effects of Medicare Part D on pharmaceutical research and development

Does Targeted, Disease‐Specific Public Research Funding Influence Pharmaceutical Innovation?

A Breath of Fresh Air? Firm Type, Scale, Scope, and Selection Effects in Drug Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About