Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Translational Medicine 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Review

Changing R&D models in research-based pharmaceutical companies

Authors: Alexander Schuhmacher, Oliver Gassmann, Markus Hinder

Published in: Journal of Translational Medicine | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

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.
Footnotes
1
This review details the efficiency parameters of pharmaceutical R&D and the consequences of the low R&D efficiency for the industry. See also Schuhmacher et al. [10].
 
Literature
3.
go back to reference Munos B. Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2009;8:959–68.CrossRefPubMed Munos B. Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2009;8:959–68.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Kola I, Landis J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004;3:711–6.CrossRefPubMed Kola I, Landis J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004;3:711–6.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Schuhmacher A, et al. Value creation in the pharmaceutical industry: the critical path to innovation. Wiley; 2016. ISBN 978-3-527-33913-6. Schuhmacher A, et al. Value creation in the pharmaceutical industry: the critical path to innovation. Wiley; 2016. ISBN 978-3-527-33913-6.
11.
go back to reference 2014 CMR International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook. 2014 CMR International Pharmaceutical R&D Factbook.
12.
go back to reference Paul SM, et al. How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:203–14.PubMed Paul SM, et al. How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:203–14.PubMed
13.
go back to reference DiMasi JA. Risks in new drug development: approval success rates for investigational drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69:297–307.CrossRefPubMed DiMasi JA. Risks in new drug development: approval success rates for investigational drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69:297–307.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Prinz F, et al. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:712–3.CrossRefPubMed Prinz F, et al. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:712–3.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Bergren R, et al. Outlook for the next 5 years in drug innovation. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012;11:435–6.CrossRef Bergren R, et al. Outlook for the next 5 years in drug innovation. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012;11:435–6.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Agarwal P. Novelty in the target landscape of the pharmaceutical industry. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12:575–6.CrossRefPubMed Agarwal P. Novelty in the target landscape of the pharmaceutical industry. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12:575–6.CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
go back to reference Swinney DC, Anthony J. How were new medicines discovered? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;11:507–19.CrossRef Swinney DC, Anthony J. How were new medicines discovered? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;11:507–19.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Scannell JW, et al. Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012;11:191–200.CrossRefPubMed Scannell JW, et al. Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012;11:191–200.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Pammolli F, et al. The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:428–38.CrossRefPubMed Pammolli F, et al. The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:428–38.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Arrowsmith J, Miller P. Trial Watch: phase II and Phase III attrition rates 2011–2012. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12:569.CrossRefPubMed Arrowsmith J, Miller P. Trial Watch: phase II and Phase III attrition rates 2011–2012. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12:569.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Cook D, et al. Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca’s drug pipeline: a five-dimensional framework. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2014;13:419–31.CrossRefPubMed Cook D, et al. Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca’s drug pipeline: a five-dimensional framework. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2014;13:419–31.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference DiMasi JA, et al. Trends in risks associated with new drug development: success rates for investigational drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;87:272–7.CrossRefPubMed DiMasi JA, et al. Trends in risks associated with new drug development: success rates for investigational drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;87:272–7.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Hay M, et al. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32:40–51.CrossRefPubMed Hay M, et al. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32:40–51.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Kaitin KI, DiMasi JA. Pharmaceutical innovation in the 21st century: new drug approvals in the first decade, 2000–2009. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89(2):183–8.CrossRefPubMed Kaitin KI, DiMasi JA. Pharmaceutical innovation in the 21st century: new drug approvals in the first decade, 2000–2009. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89(2):183–8.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Dickson M, Gagnon JP. Key factors in the rising cost of new drug discovery and development. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004;3:417–29.CrossRefPubMed Dickson M, Gagnon JP. Key factors in the rising cost of new drug discovery and development. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004;3:417–29.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference DiMasi JA. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ. 2003;23:151–85.CrossRef DiMasi JA. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ. 2003;23:151–85.CrossRef
29.
31.
go back to reference Danzon PM. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. Manag Decis Econ. 2007;28:307–28.CrossRef Danzon PM. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. Manag Decis Econ. 2007;28:307–28.CrossRef
32.
33.
go back to reference Ornaghi C. Mergers and innovation in big pharma. Int J Ind Organ. 2009;27:70–9.CrossRef Ornaghi C. Mergers and innovation in big pharma. Int J Ind Organ. 2009;27:70–9.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Comanor WS, Scherer FM. Mergers and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. J Health Econ. 2013;32:106–13.CrossRefPubMed Comanor WS, Scherer FM. Mergers and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. J Health Econ. 2013;32:106–13.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference DiMasi JA, et al. The impact of collaborative and risk-sharing innovation approaches on clinical and regulatory cycle times. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2014;48:482–7.CrossRef DiMasi JA, et al. The impact of collaborative and risk-sharing innovation approaches on clinical and regulatory cycle times. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2014;48:482–7.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Kruse S, et al. Pharmaceutical RandD productivity: the role of alliances. J Commer Biotechnol. 2014;20:11–20.CrossRef Kruse S, et al. Pharmaceutical RandD productivity: the role of alliances. J Commer Biotechnol. 2014;20:11–20.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Garnier JP. Rebuilding the R&D engine in big pharma. Harv Bus Rev. 2008;86:68–79.PubMed Garnier JP. Rebuilding the R&D engine in big pharma. Harv Bus Rev. 2008;86:68–79.PubMed
38.
go back to reference Douglas FL, et al. The case for entrepreneurship in R&D in the pharmaceutical industry. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:683–9.CrossRefPubMed Douglas FL, et al. The case for entrepreneurship in R&D in the pharmaceutical industry. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:683–9.CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Tralau-Stewart CJ, et al. Drug discovery: new models for industry-academic partnerships. Drug Discov Today. 2009;14:95–101.CrossRefPubMed Tralau-Stewart CJ, et al. Drug discovery: new models for industry-academic partnerships. Drug Discov Today. 2009;14:95–101.CrossRefPubMed
40.
go back to reference Regalado A. Money seeks idea. MIT. Technol Rev. 2012;115(6):75–6. Regalado A. Money seeks idea. MIT. Technol Rev. 2012;115(6):75–6.
41.
go back to reference Ekins S, et al. Four disruptive strategies for removing drug discovery bottlenecks. Drug Discov Today. 2013;18:265–71.CrossRefPubMed Ekins S, et al. Four disruptive strategies for removing drug discovery bottlenecks. Drug Discov Today. 2013;18:265–71.CrossRefPubMed
43.
44.
go back to reference Schuhmacher A, et al. Models for open innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Drug Discov Today. 2013;18:1133–7.CrossRefPubMed Schuhmacher A, et al. Models for open innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Drug Discov Today. 2013;18:1133–7.CrossRefPubMed
47.
go back to reference Mehta S, Peters LS. Outsourcing a core competency. Res Technol Manag. 2007;5:28–33. Mehta S, Peters LS. Outsourcing a core competency. Res Technol Manag. 2007;5:28–33.
48.
go back to reference Clark DE. Outsourcing lead optimization: the eye of the storm. Drug Discov Today. 2010;16:147–57.CrossRefPubMed Clark DE. Outsourcing lead optimization: the eye of the storm. Drug Discov Today. 2010;16:147–57.CrossRefPubMed
49.
go back to reference Kermani F. Drug discovery partnerships between UK CROs and the Swiss pharma sector. Pharm Technol Eur. 2014;26:8–11. Kermani F. Drug discovery partnerships between UK CROs and the Swiss pharma sector. Pharm Technol Eur. 2014;26:8–11.
50.
go back to reference Levy H. Integrated outsourcing transforms and increases R&D productivity. J Commer Biotechnol. 2013;19:49–54.CrossRef Levy H. Integrated outsourcing transforms and increases R&D productivity. J Commer Biotechnol. 2013;19:49–54.CrossRef
52.
go back to reference Harrison C. GlaxoSmithKline opens the door on clinical data sharing. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;11:891–2.CrossRef Harrison C. GlaxoSmithKline opens the door on clinical data sharing. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;11:891–2.CrossRef
53.
go back to reference Strauss S. Pharma embraces open source models. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;7:631–4.CrossRef Strauss S. Pharma embraces open source models. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;7:631–4.CrossRef
54.
go back to reference Munos B. Can open-source drug R&D repower pharmaceutical innovation? Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;87:534–6.CrossRefPubMed Munos B. Can open-source drug R&D repower pharmaceutical innovation? Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;87:534–6.CrossRefPubMed
55.
go back to reference Roijakkers N, Hagedorn J. Inter-firm R&D partnering in pharmaceutical biotechnology since 1975: trends, patterns, and networks. Res Policy. 2006;35:431–46.CrossRef Roijakkers N, Hagedorn J. Inter-firm R&D partnering in pharmaceutical biotechnology since 1975: trends, patterns, and networks. Res Policy. 2006;35:431–46.CrossRef
56.
go back to reference Lessl M, et al. Grants4Targets– an innovative approach to translate ideas from basic research into novel drugs. Drug Discov Today. 2011;16:288–92.CrossRefPubMed Lessl M, et al. Grants4Targets– an innovative approach to translate ideas from basic research into novel drugs. Drug Discov Today. 2011;16:288–92.CrossRefPubMed
57.
go back to reference Dorsch H, et al. Grants4Targets—an open innovation initiative to foster drug discovery collaborations between academia and the pharmaceutical industry. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015;14:74–6.CrossRefPubMed Dorsch H, et al. Grants4Targets—an open innovation initiative to foster drug discovery collaborations between academia and the pharmaceutical industry. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015;14:74–6.CrossRefPubMed
58.
go back to reference Owens PK. A decade of innovation in pharmaceutical R&D: the Chorus model. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015;14:17–28.CrossRefPubMed Owens PK. A decade of innovation in pharmaceutical R&D: the Chorus model. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015;14:17–28.CrossRefPubMed
59.
go back to reference Longman R. Lilly‘s chorus experiment. In Vivo. 2007;25(5):1–5. Longman R. Lilly‘s chorus experiment. In Vivo. 2007;25(5):1–5.
Metadata
Title
Changing R&D models in research-based pharmaceutical companies
Authors
Alexander Schuhmacher
Oliver Gassmann
Markus Hinder
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1479-5876
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-016-0838-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Journal of Translational Medicine 1/2016 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.