ArticlePharmacoEconomics2002
The value of improving the productivity of the drug development process: faster times and better decisions.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
35 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intelligent information management enables quality-by-design in pharmaceutical production.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Computational integration and meta-analysis of abandoned cardio-(vascular/renal/metabolic) therapeutics discontinued during clinical trials from 2011 to 2022.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Strategic, feasibility, economic, and cultural aspects of phase 0 approaches: Is it time to change the drug development process in order to increase productivity?Clinical and translational science · 2022Review
- UNDERSTANDING PREFERENCES FOR TYPE OF TAKE-HOME NALOXONE DEVICE: INTERNATIONAL QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE VIEWS OF PEOPLE WHO USE OPIOIDS.Drugs (Abingdon, England) · 2022Article
- The drug lag issue: a 20-year review of China.Investigational new drugs · 2021Review
- A Primer on RECIST 1.1 for Oncologic Imaging in Clinical Drug Trials.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2021Article
- Biowire Model of Interstitial and Focal Cardiac Fibrosis.ACS central science · 2019Article
- Prolonged-release opioid agonist therapy: qualitative study exploring patients' views of 1-week, 1-month, and 6-month buprenorphine formulations.Harm reduction journal · 2019Article
- Mendelian Randomization Studies Promise to Shorten the Journey to FDA Approval.JACC. Basic to translational science · 2018Article
- Article
- Rational Clinical Experiment: Assessing Prior Probability and Its Impact on the Success of Phase II Clinical Trials.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2015Article
- Biomedical Imaging in Implantable Drug Delivery Systems.Current drug targets · 2015Review
- Identifying and prioritizing industry-level competitiveness factors: evidence from pharmaceutical market.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2014Article
- Mechanistic systems modeling to guide drug discovery and development.Drug discovery today · 2013Review
- LiCABEDS II. Modeling of ligand selectivity for G-protein-coupled cannabinoid receptors.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2013Article
- Decline in new drug launches: myth or reality? Retrospective observational study using 30 years of data from the UK.BMJ open · 2013Article
- Physiologically based pharmacokinetic models: integration of in silico approaches with micro cell culture analogues.Current drug metabolism · 2012Review
- Situation analysis of R & d activities: an empirical study in Iranian pharmaceutical companies.Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR · 2012Article
- Phase 0 clinical trials in oncology new drug development.Perspectives in clinical research · 2011Article
- Medical imaging in new drug clinical development.Journal of thoracic disease · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study examines the financial benefits that can accrue to drug developers from improvements in the drug development process. The effect on drug development costs from faster development, earlier decisions on project failures, and higher approval success rates are quantified. DATA AND
methodsThe results from a recent study of research and development (R&D) costs for new drugs are used as a benchmark against which improvements in the discovery and development processes are simulated. The cost results in the benchmark study were based on a sample of 68 randomly selected investigational drugs from 10 pharmaceutical firms.
resultsSimultaneous 25% reductions in phase lengths lower capitalized total cost per approved drug by 16%, or $US129 million; 50% reductions in time lower cost by 29%, or $US235 million. Earlier decisions to terminate research on drugs that will ultimately fail significantly reduce clinical costs. For example, shifting 5% of all clinical failures from phase III/regulatory review to phase I reduces out-of-pocket clinical costs by 5.5 to 7.1%; and capitalized clinical cost is lowered by 5.1 to 6.3%. If more productive discovery programmes or better preclinical screens increase success rates from 21.5% to one in three, firms can reduce capitalized total cost per approved drug by $US221 million to $US242 million.
conclusionsWhether faster development times, quicker termination decisions or higher success rates derive from public policy initiatives, better management, or new technologies, the impact on R&D costs can be substantial. Ultimately, the increased efficiency could result in more innovation and new therapies reaching patients sooner.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12457421What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.