The Impact of Incremental Innovation in Biopharmaceuticals
- 140 Downloads
Background: The apparent decrease in the rate of approval of new molecular entities has provoked extensive discussion and fears that the productivity of biopharmaceutical research and development has severely declined in recent years.
Objective: To investigate the extent to which traditional measures of innovative output neglect important innovations that occur after a drug receives initial market approval.
Methods and Results: Data on drug utilisation by diagnosis for the period 1999–2004 were combined with data on the approval histories of three important classes of drugs: ACE inhibitors, histamine H2-antagonists/proton-pump inhibitors, and selective serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. Counts of new drug approvals by the FDA were classified as new indications, new dosages, new combinations, new formulations, and labeling for expanded populations. Large numbers of such “supplemental” approvals were obtained. The share of drug utilisation in indications other than that specified in the initially approved labeling was computed, and found to be very substantial in two out of the three drug classes considered.
Conclusions: Significant incremental innovation to existing pharmaceutical products has been occurring in the form of supplementary approvals for new dosages, formulations, and indications. These innovations account for a substantial share of drug utilisation and associated economic and medical benefits. Productivity trends for research and development based on counts of new molecular entities alone have therefore overlooked an important source of innovation in biopharmaceuticals.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.El Feki S. Prescription for change. The Economist 2005 Jun 16Google Scholar
- 4.Mason T. R&D productivity: how should it be measured? A perspective based on fundamental principles. Presentation to Drug Information Association, Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, 2004 Jun 15Google Scholar
- 8.Beales JH III. New uses for old drugs. In: Helms RB, editor, Competitive strategies in the pharmaceutical industry. Washington, DC: AEI Press for the American Enterprise Institute, 1996: 281–305Google Scholar
- 12.Graham JB. Trends in U.S. regulatory approvals of biopharmaceutical therapeutic entities [SM thesis]. Cambridge (MA): Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, 2005 JanGoogle Scholar
- 13.Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. Glossary of terms. Dated 7 January 2005 [online]. Available from: http://csdd.tufts.edu/InfoServices/Glossary.asp [Accessed 2005 Jan 13]
- 15.Berndt ER, Russell JM. Who will dance with cyberonics? Part A of an MIT Sloan School Case Study. Cambridge (MA): MIT Sloan School, Mimeo, 2003 Oct 9Google Scholar
- 16.von Hippel E. Democratizing innovation. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 2005Google Scholar
- 17.von Hippel E. The sources of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998Google Scholar
- 24.Radley DC. Off-label prescription among office-based physicians: trends, predictors, and regulatory implications [unpublished thesis for the Master in Public Health degree]. New Haven (CT): Yale University School of Epidemiology and Public Health, 2003Google Scholar
- 25.Radley D, Stafford R, Finkelstein S, Cockburn I. Off-label prescription among outpatient physicians [Powerpoint presentation]. Academy Health Meetings; 2004 Jun 6–8; San Diego (CA)Google Scholar
- 27.Pomerantz JM. The widespread utility of antidepressants. Drug Benefit Trends 2001; 13(11): 34BH–35BHGoogle Scholar
- 28.US FDA. Drugs@FDA [online] http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/ [Accessed 4 July 2005]
- 29.IMS America. Information services manual. IMS America: Plymouth Meeting; 1996; Pennsylvania (PA)Google Scholar
- 31.Pomerantz JM. Deliberate misdiagnosis of behavior health disorders. Drug Benefit Trends 2003; 15: 34BH–35BH.Google Scholar
- 32.Sankar P, Kahn J. BiDil: race medicine or race marking? Health Aff (Millwood) 2005; 24:W5: 455–62Google Scholar
- 33.Berndt ER, Bhattacharjya A, Mishol D, et al. An analysis of the diffusion of new antidepressants: variety, quality, and marketing efforts. J Ment Health Pol Econ 2002; 5(1): 323–48Google Scholar