Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32869110›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2021

A Multifaceted Perspective of Pharmaceutical Innovation: A Consideration of the Regulatory Role.

Mark Robberson, Christopher D Breder

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mark RobbersonAdvanced Academic Programs, Regulatory Science Program, Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC, 20036, USA.
Christopher D BrederAdvanced Academic Programs, Regulatory Science Program, Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC, 20036, USA. cbreder1@jhu.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-8874-3401

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe pace of innovation, the creative engine of the pharmaceutical industry, has been variably described as stagnant, stable, or accelerating depending on the metric used for assessment or the quality of evidence. If the predominant perception holds that the speed of innovation is sluggish, pressure for changes in the regulatory environment intensifies.

methodsA systematic evaluation of the course of innovation in this industry was performed by applying a formula derived from economic market share theory to estimate the innovative contribution of each new molecular entity approved since 1938. The total and average innovation scores per year are described based on the therapeutic class, mechanism, and drug target. These data are compared to the number and percent of first-in-class drugs per year.

resultsThe average annual score based on therapeutic class novelty has been declining; however, the therapeutic class total innovation score has been stable since the mid-1970s with occasional significant peaks of activity. While the average score based on mechanism or target experienced a decline beginning in the 1950s and 1960s, it has begun to rise since the early 1990s. Notably, the total innovation score has steadily increased since the 1970s. These variations closely parallel the number of first-in-class drugs approved on an annual basis.

conclusionsWhile the reasons underlying these activities are likely complex, there is a temporal association between regulatory efforts to expedite drug development and approval. These findings should be considered when considering future incentivizing regulations and policies.

Indexed as

Drug IndustryPharmaceutical PreparationsForecastingPharmaceutical PreparationsBiotechnologyBusiness cycleDrug developmentInnovationPharmaceutical

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.