Global drug discovery: Europe is ahead

Health Affairs

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2009, Pages

  Light, Donald W ^a,b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG MANUFACTURE; DRUG RESEARCH; EMPLOYER; EUROPE; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH INSURANCE; PHARMACEUTICS; PRODUCTIVITY; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DRUG DISCOVERY; EUROPE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 70349199320     PISSN: 02782715     EISSN: 15445208     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.5.w969     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. L. Gambardella, L. Orsenigo, and F. Pammolli, Global Competitiveness in Pharmaceuticals: A European Perspective (Brussels: Directorate General for Enterprise, European Commission, 2000);
2. High Level Group on Innovation and Provision of Medicines in the European Union, "Recommendations for Action" (Brussels: European Commission - Enterprise and Industry, 2002).
3. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, The Pharmaceutical Industry in Figures, 2008 ed. (Brussels: EFPIA, 2008).
4. H.G. Grabowski and Y.R. Wang. "The Quantity and Quality of Worldwide New Drug Introductions, 1982-2003," Health Affairs 25, no.2 (2006): 452-460.
5. IMS Health is the global leader in market intelligence and information on pharmaceuticals. See the IMS Health home page at http://www.imshealth.com.
6. Limitations of this analysis lie mainly in the original data. For example, assigning NCEs by where the launching company's headquarters was located is commonly used but is clearly less accurate than investigating where the real discovery and development took place. The first-in-class designation is the object of methodological debates discussed in the original article, but this reanalysis uses the count provided. Further limitations about research and development (R&D) investments also reside in the figures given. They cannot be verified and may include costs not reasonably considered R&D for new drugs. They may have been assembled by different trade associations in different ways. As in the original article, such limitations are accepted in order to focus on major trends using data presented by the industry.
7. Grabowski and Wang identified 659 global, first-in-class, biotech, and orphan NCEs out of their total 919 NCEs for both periods. Grabowski and Wang, "The Quantity and Quality."
8. Gambardella et al., Global Competitiveness in Pharmaceuticals;
9. High Level Group, "Recommendations";
10. U.S. Department of Commerce, Pharmaceutical Price Controls in OECD Countries: Implications for U.S. Consumers, Pricing, Research and Development, and Innovation (Washington: Department of Commerce, 2004).
11. S. Frantz, "Pharma Faces Major Challenges after a Year of Failures and Heated Battles," Nature Reviews/Drug Discovery 6, no.1 (2007): 5-7.
12. EFPIA, The Pharmaceutical Industry in Figures, p. 4. I initially contacted Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) in Washington to ask for the best information on changes in industry R&D investments. The senior manager of policy, Gretta Thorn, sent me the EFPIA report as the best source. Extensive and ultimately unresolvable debates could be held about the consistency and quality of R&D funding reported by different companies to their trade association.
13. More finely grained analyses will run into the problem of small numbers for first-in-class, biotech, and orphan drugs.
14. Grabowski and Wang, "The Quantity and Quality," 452.
15. Top Institute Pharma creates collaborative academic and industry research teams involving several larger and smaller biotech companies, universities, and the Dutch government to accelerate commercial use of discoveries. For an overview, see D.J.A. Crommelin, "Public-Private Partnerships and 'Le Defi Americain' Revisited," EUFEPS Newsletter 15, no.2 (2006): 1-3.
16. The TI Pharma home page is http://www.tipharma.com.
17. One of Europe's leading research institutes, Karolinska Institutet Innovations aims to develop commercial usesmore fully before transferring technology through a licensing agreement to obtain more profitable terms. See its home page at http://www.karolinskainnovations.ki.se.
18. Information on this large, complex European Innovative Medicines Initiative is available from Innovative Medicines Initiative, "Objectives," http://imi.europa.eu/objectives-en.html (accessed 6 August 2009).
19. "Atorvastatin: Why Such a Commercial Success?" (editorial), Prescrire International 13, no.74 (2004): 237;
20. "Choix d'une Statine" (editorial), La Revue Prescrire 26, no.276 (2006): 692-695;
21. P. Mansfield, D. Henry, and A. Tonkin, "Single-Enantiomer Drugs: Elegant Science, Disappointing Effects," Clinical Pharmacokinetics 43, no. 5 (2004): 287-290.
22. S. Garattini and V. Bertele, "Efficacy, Safety, and Cost of New Anticancer Drugs," BMJ 325, no.7358 (2002): 269-271;
23. G. Apolone et al., "Ten Years of Marketing Approvals of Anticancer Drugs in Europe," British Journal of Cancer 93, no. 5 (2005): 504-509.
24. R. Joppi, V. Bertele, and S. Garattini, "Disappointing Biotech," BMJ 331, no.7521 (2005): 895-897.
25. "A Look Back at Pharmaceuticals in 2006: Aggressive Advertising Cannot Hide the Absence of Therapeutic Advances" (editorial), Prescrire International 16, no.88 (2007): 80-86.
26. M. Hunt, Changing Patterns of Pharmaceutical Innovation (Washington: National Institute for Health Care Management Research and Education Foundation, 2002);
27. Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, Annual Report 2004 (Ottawa: PMPRB, 2005).
28. P.E. Barral, Twenty Years of Pharmaceutical Research Results throughout the World: 1975-1994 (Paris: Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Foundation, 1996).
29. P. Stolk and D.W. Light, "Did the U.S. Eclipse European Research Productivity? An Analysis of Major Reports as Searchlights in the Fog," Report to TI Pharma Escher Project (Utrecht: University of Utrecht, 2008).
30. U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Private Medicare Drug Plans: High Expenses and Low Rebates Increase the Costs of Medicare Drug Coverage, http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071015093754.pdf (accessed 6 August 2009);
31. U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, "Baucus Condemns Senate Failure on Medicare Drug Price Negotiation," Press Release, 18 April 2007, http://www.senate.gov/~finance/press/ Bpress/2007press/prb041807a.pdf (accessed 6 August 2009).
32. D.W. Light and J. Lexchin, "Foreign Free Riders and the High Price of U.S. Medicines," BMJ 331, no.7522 (2005): 958-960.
33. F.R. Curtiss and K.A. Fairman, "Looking for the Outcomes We Love in All the Wrong Places: The Questionable Value of Biomarkers and Investments in Chronic Care Disease Management Interventions," Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy 14, no.6 (2008): 563-570.
34. M.K. Olson, "Are Novel Drugs More Risky for Patients than Less Novel Drugs?" Journal of Health Economics 23, no.6 (2004): 1135-1158;
35. D. Carpenter, E.J. Zucker, and J. Avorn, "Drug-Review Deadlines and Safety Problems,"New England Journal of Medicine 358, no. 13 (2008): 1354-1361;
36. T.J. Giezen et al., "Safety-Related Regulatory Actions for Biologicals Approved in the United States and the European Union," Journal of the American Medical Association 300, no. 16 (2008): 1887-1896.
37. Patented drugs make up 28.7 percent of sales volume but 80.6 percent of costs. P.M. Danzon and M.F. Furukawa, "International Prices and Availability of Pharmaceuticals in 2005," Health Affairs 27, no. 1 (2008): 227, Exhibit 5.
38. A. Jayadev and J. Stiglitz, "Two Ideas to Increase Innovation and Reduce Pharmaceutical Costs and Prices," Health Affairs 28, no.1 (2009): w165-w168 (published online 16 December 2008; 10.1377/hlthaff.28.1.w165).
39. For Consumer Reports Best Buy Drugs, see http://www.consumerreports.org/ health/best-buy-drugs/index.htm. Benefits, side effects, and costs are compared for thirty-five common conditions.