Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

R&D Outcomes

  • Chapter
Drug and Biological Development

  • 1895 Accesses

When outcomes from R&D are addressed, new products are certainly the first outputs that are thought of as being produced by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. New products often are prescribed preferentially by physicians for the mitigation of disease and improvement of patient care because of their novel features over existing treatments. These new products will be the primary driver of innovations in health care, research advances, profitability, and business success for a company. However, many other important outcomes are needed routinely to be delivered by the R&D division and need support from all the rest of the company in order for the company to achieve four goals: demonstrate their scientific and medical prowess and productivity, meet the needs of the public and health care community for the best products used optimally, meet the needs of the shareholders, and sustain the company’s research edge against the competition.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Guy P. Rising to the productivity challenge. A strategic framework for biopharma. Boston Consulting Group. July 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lawyer P, Kirstein A, Yabuki H, Gjaja M, Kush D. High science: a best-practice formula for driving innovation. In Vivo The Business & Medicine Report 2004;22(4):1–12 (BCG authors).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ernst & Young. Resurgence: The Americas perspective. 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ernst & Young. Progressions. Global Pharmaceutical Report 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lamberti MJ (Ed). An Industry in Evolution, 4th ed. Thomson, CenterWatch. 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Anonymous. Report to the Nation 2003, Improving Public Health through Human Drugs. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Vander Walde L, Choi K, Higgins J. Health Care Industry Market Update. Pharmaceuticals. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Department of Health and Human Services. January 2003, 1–52.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Anonymous. Health Care in America. Trends in Utilization. Centers for Disease Control. Department of Health Human Services. 2002, 1–90.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lahteenmaki R, Baker M. Public biotechnology 2003—the numbers. Nature Biotechnology 2004;22(6):665–670.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Booth B, Zemmell R. Prospects for productivity. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2004;3(5):451–456.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rawlins MD. Cutting the cost of drug development. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2004;3(4):360–364.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 15th annual report top 50 pharmaceutical companies. Med Ad News 2003;22(9):4–19.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sellers LJ (ed). Our 5th annual report of the world's top 50 pharma companies. Pharmaceutical Executive 2004;24(5):60–70.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Trombetta B. Industry audit & “fab four” companies of the year. Pharmaceutical Executive 2003;23(9):38–64.

    Google Scholar 

  15. From pipeline to market 2004. Areas of interest. R&D Directions 2004;10(6):8–18.

    Google Scholar 

  16. King J. Advances in medicine.100 great investigational drugs. R&D Directions 2004;10(3):31–51.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Engel S. How to manage a winning pipeline. R&D Directions 2002;(2):36–41.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Anonymous. Profile pharmaceutical industry 2004, Focus on innovation. PhRMA, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Anonymous. PhRMA. Industry profile 2003. Prescription medicines 25 years ago and today: changing trends, enduring needs. 1–81.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ernst & Young. The economic contributions of the biotechnology industry to the US economy. May 2000, Biotechnology Industry Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tufts Center for Study of Drug Development. Outlook 2005;1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Tufts CSDD. Outlook 2004;1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Tufts CSDD. Outlook 2003;1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tufts CSDD. Outlook 2002;1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tufts CSDD. Outlook 2001;1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Matthieu M (ed.). Parexel's Pharmaceutical R&D Statistical Sourcebook 2005–2006. Parexel Publishing, Boston, MA. 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Anonymous. Health, United States, 2004. National Center for Health Statistics. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Edwards MG, Murray F. Yu R. Value creation and sharing among universities, biotechnology and pharma. Nature Biotechnology 2003;21(6):618–624.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Resnick JT. Reputation the inside story. Pharmaceutical Executive 2003;23(6):40–48.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gasorek DW, Resnick JT. The rise and fall of pharma reputations. Pharmaceutical Executive 2005;25(2):76–83.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Maggon K. The ten billion dollar molecule. Pharmaceutical Executive 2003;23(11):60–68.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bogan C, Wang D. Launching a blockbuster. Pharmaceutical Executive 2000;20(8):96–104.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Booth B, Zemmel R. Quest for the best. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2003;2(10):838–841.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. King J. Today's drug discovery unlocking greater potential. R&D Directions 2004;10(2):28–39.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lindsay MA. Target discovery. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2003;2(10):831–837.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lombardino JG, Lowe III JA. The role of the medicinal chemist in drug discovery—then and now. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2004;3(10):853–862.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Product failures.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Garaud J-J. The most diversified development pipeline, innovation, focus, productivity. R&D Directions 2004 Drug Development Summit, How to Build and Maintain a Winning Pipeline. Feb. 8–11, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bellucci NM. The top 10 pipelines. Novartis: most productive and strongest primary care pipeline. Stroing and steady. R&D Directions 2005;11(1):50–53.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Amgen Web site (amgen.com), December 2004.

  41. Bellucci NM. Top 10 pipelines. Amgen: most advanced pipeline/best biotechnology pipeline. R&D Directions 2005;11(1):32–35.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Bellucci NM. Top 10 pipelines. R&D Directions 2005;11(1): 32–66.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ashburn TT, Thor KB. Drug repositioning: identifying and developing new uses for existing drugs. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2004;3(8):673–683.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Frei P, Leleux B. Valuation—what you need to know. Nature Biotechnology 2004;22(8):1049–1051.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tollman P, Goodall S, Ringel M. The gentle art of licensing. Rising to the productivity challenge in biopharma R&D. Boston Consulting Group. July 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Arnold K, Coia A, Saywell S, Smith T, Minick S, Loffler A. Value drivers in licensing deals. Nature Biotechnology 2002;20(11):1085–1089.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Featherstone J, Renfrey S. From the analyst's couch. The licensing gamble: raising the stakes. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2004;3(2):107–108.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Webber PM. Protecting your inventions: the patent system. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2003;2(10):823–830.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Rubinger B, Davis H. Protecting IP throughout the product lifecycle. Pharmaceutical Executive 2003;23(8):40–48.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Steffe EK, Shea Jr TJ. Protecting innovation in biotechnology startups. Nature Biotechnology Supplement 21:BE51-BE53, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Lam LD. Biotech+Pharma dangerous liaisons. Pharmaceutical Executive 2004;24(5):72–80.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Engel S. Drug-discovery companies aim for commercialization. Good leads good medicine. R&D Directions 2002;8(7):34–42.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Lam MD. Biotech+pharma. Why alliances fail. Pharmaceutical Executive 2004;24(6):56–66.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Ansell J. The billion dollar pyramid. Megamergers' greatest challenge. Pharmaceutical Executive 2000;(8):64–72.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Bogan C, Symmers K. Marriages made in heaven. Pharmaceutical Executive 2001;(1):52–60.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Florida, Jacksonville, FL

    Clinical Professor Ronald P. Evens Pharm D., FCCP

Authors
  1. Clinical Professor Ronald P. Evens Pharm D., FCCP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Florida, Jacksonville, FL

    Ronald P. Evens Pharm D., FCCP

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Evens, R.P. (2007). R&D Outcomes. In: Evens, R.P. (eds) Drug and Biological Development. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-69094-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation