Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Role of pharmacoeconomic analysis in R&D decision making

When, Where, How?

  • Leading Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pharmacoeconomics is vitally important to drug manufacturers in terms of communicating to external decision-makers (payers, prescribers, patients) the value of their products, achieving regulatory and reimbursement approval and contributing to commercial success. Since development of new drugs is long, costly and risky, and decisions must be made how to allocate considerable research and development (R&D) resources, pharmacoeconomics also has an essential role informing internal decision-making (within a company) during drug development.

The use of pharmacoeconomics in early development phases is likely to enhance the efficiency of R&D resource use and also provide a solid foundation for communicating product value to external decision-makers further downstream, increasing the likelihood of regulatory (reimbursement) approval and commercial success. This paper puts the case for use of pharmacoeconomic analyses earlier in the development process and outlines five techniques (clinical trial simulation [CTS], option pricing [OP], investment appraisal [IA], threshold analysis [TA] and value of information [VOI] analysis) that can provide useful input into the design of clinical development programmes, portfolio management and optimal pricing strategy.

CTS can estimate efficacy and tolerability profiles before clinical data are available. OP can show the value of different clinical programme designs, sequencing of studies and stop decisions. IA can compare expected net present value (NPV) of different product profiles or study designs. TA can be used to understand development drug profile requirements given partial data. VOI can assist risk management by quantifying uncertainty and assessing the economic viability of gathering further information on the development drug.

No amount of pharmacoeconomic data can make a bad drug good; what it can do is enhance the drug developers understanding of the characteristics of that drug. Decision-making, in light of this information, is likely to be better than that without it, whether it leads to faster termination of uneconomic projects or the allocation of more appropriate resources to attractive projects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Noyce R. Ch. 11. Project strategy. In: Matheson D, Matheson J, editors. The smart organisation: creating value through strategic R&D. Boston (MA): Harvard Business School Press, 1998: 221

    Google Scholar 

  2. Grabowski H. The effect of pharmacoeconomics on company research and development decisions. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11 (5): 389–97

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Clemens K, Garrison LP, Jones A, et al. Strategic use of pharmacoeconomic research in early drug development and global pricing. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 4 (5): 315–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Datamonitor. Optimizing pharmacoeconomic return on investment. Benefits throughout the product life cycle. Datamonitor (report ref: DMHC1478) 2000

  5. DiMasi JA, Caglarcan E, Wood-Armany M. Emerging role of pharmacoeconomics in the research and development decision-making process. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (7): 753–66

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003 Mar; 22 (2): 151–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. DiMasi JA. The value of improving the productivity of the drug development process: faster times and better decisions. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20 Suppl. 3: 1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Grabowski H, Vernon J, DiMasi J. Returns on research and development for 1990s new drug introductions. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20 Suppl. 3: 11–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Annemans L, Geneste B, Jolain B. Early modelling for assessing health and economic outcomes of drug therapy. Value Health 2000; 3 (6: 427–34

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. O’Hagan A, Luce B. A primer on Bayesian statistics in health economics and outcomes research. Bethesda (MD): Medtap International, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  11. Briggs A. Statistical methods for cost-effectiveness research: a guide to current issues and future developments. London: OHE, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  12. Shih Y-CT. Bayesian approach in pharmacoeconomics: relevance to decision-makers. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2003; 3 (3): 237–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. O’Hagan A, Stevens JW. Bayesian methods for design and analysis of cost-effectiveness trials in the evaluation of health care technologies. Stat Methods Med Res 2002; 11: 469–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. O’Hagan A, Stevens JW. Bayesian assessment of sample size for clinical trials of cost effectiveness. Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 219–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bonate PL. Clinical trial simulation in drug development. Pharm Res 2000; 17: 252–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hale M, Gillespie WR, Gupta S, et al. Clinical trial simulation as a tool for increased drug development efficiency [online]. Available from URL: http://www.actmagazine.com/applied clinical trials. [Accessed 2004 May 31]

  17. Krall RL, Engleman KH, Ko HC, et al. Clinical trial modelling and simulation: work in progress. Drug Inf J 1998; 32: 971–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Holford NH, Kimko HC, Monteleone JP, et al. Simulation of clinical trials. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2000; 40: 209–34

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hughes DA, Walley T. Economic evaluations during early (phase II) drug development: a role for clinical trial simulations? Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (11): 1069–77

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Burman CF, Senn S. Examples of option values in drug development. Pharmaceut Statist 2003; 2: 113–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pearson A. The use of ranking formulae in R&D projects. R&D Management 1972; 2: 69–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Senn S. Some statistical issues in project prioritization in the pharmaceutical industry. Stat Med 1996; 15: 2689–702

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Senn S. Further statistical issues in project prioritization in the pharmaceutical industry. Drug Inf 1998; 32: 253–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Palmer S, Smith P. Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 2000; 19: 755–66

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Backhouse ME. An investment appraisal approach to clinical trial design. Health Econ 1998; 7: 605–19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Chilcott J, Brennan A, Booth A, et al. The role of modelling in the planning and prioritisation of clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7 (23): iii, 1–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Backhouse ME. Use of randomised controlled trials for producing cost-effectiveness evidence: potential impact of design choices on sample size and study duration. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20 (15): 1061–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Backhouse ME. The use of discrete choice analysis in the design of randomised controlled trials [poster]. ISPOR; 2002 Nov 35; Rotterdam

    Google Scholar 

  29. Poland B, Wada R. Combining drug-disease and economic modelling to inform drug development decisions. Drug Discov Today 2001; 6 (22): 1165–70

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Thompson D, Bird A, Weinstein M. Decision analysis in the drug development process: use of pharmacoeconomics to inform “go/no-go” decision-making. ISPOR Seminar; 2002 May 20; Boston

    Google Scholar 

  31. Claxton K. Bayesian approaches to the value of information: implications for regulation of new pharmaceuticals. Health Econ 1999; 8: 269–74

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Claxton K, Neumann PJ, Araki S, Weinstein MC. Bayesian value-of-information analysis: an application to a policy model of Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001 Winter; 17 (1): 38–55

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Claxton K, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority setting. Health Econ 1996; 5: 51324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Claxton K, Thompson KM. A dynamic programming approach to the efficient design of clinical trials. J Health Econ 2001 Sep; 20 (5): 797–822

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Hawkins N, Claxton K. Optimal drug development programmes and efficient licensing and reimbursement rules: the role of value of information analysis. Abstract presented at Society Medical Decision Making 2003

    Google Scholar 

  36. Taylor RS, Drummond MF, Salkeld G, Sullivan SD. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ 2004; 329: 972–5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Paul Miller is employed by AstraZeneca. The ideas expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or practices of AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca does not endorse the ideas expressed in this paper. I am grateful to my wise colleagues Dave Whynes and Fredrik Andersson for comments on earlier drafts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. AstraZeneca R&D, Lund, Sweden

    Paul Miller

Authors
  1. Paul Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Miller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Miller, P. Role of pharmacoeconomic analysis in R&D decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 23, 1–12 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523010-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523010-00001

Keywords

Search

Navigation