Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37450296›Full record

ArticleJAMA health forum2023

Spending on Phased Clinical Development of Approved Drugs by the US National Institutes of Health Compared With Industry.

Edward W Zhou, Matthew J Jackson, Fred D Ledley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA health forum, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A bibliometric analysis of medication studies in congenital heart disease.International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. The potential of artificial intelligence in clinical trials.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Gabriele et al. reply.Nature biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors.

Edward W ZhouCenter for Integration of Science and Industry, Bentley University, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Matthew J JacksonCenter for Integration of Science and Industry, Bentley University, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Fred D LedleyCenter for Integration of Science and Industry, Bentley University, Waltham, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The launch of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health to advance new cures and address public concern regarding drug prices has raised questions about the roles of government and industry in drug development. Objectives: To compare National Institutes of Health (NIH) spending on phased clinical development of approved drugs with that by industry. Design: This cross-sectional study examined NIH funding for published research reporting the results of phased clinical trials of drugs approved between 2010 and 2019 and compared the findings with reported industry spending estimates. Data analysis was performed between May 2021 and August 2022 using PubMed data from January 1999 through October 2021 and NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results data from January 1999 through December 2020. Exposures: Drugs approved between 2010 and 2019. Main Outcome and Measures: National Institutes of Health funding for published research describing applied research on approved drugs, basic research on their biological targets, and phased clinical trials related to drugs approved between 2010 and 2019 were evaluated using Mann-Whitney U tests. All costs were inflation adjusted to 2018. Results: National Institutes of Health funding for basic or applied research related to 386 of 387 drugs approved between 2010 and 2019 totaled $247.3 billion. Of this amount, $8.1 billion (3.3%) was related to phased clinical development. This funding contributed to 12 340 publications on phased clinical trial results involving 240 of 387 (62.0%) drugs. Average NIH spending was $33.8 million per drug, including $13.9 million per drug for phase 1, $22.2 million per drug for phase 2, and $12.9 million per drug for phase 3 trials. Spending by NIH on phased development represented 9.8% to 10.7% of estimated industry spending, including 24.6% to 25.3% of estimated phase 1, 21.4% to 23.2% of phase 2, and 3.7% to 4.3% of phase 3 costs. Considering 60 products for which estimated industry costs were publicly available, NIH spending on clinical trials was significantly lower than estimated industry spending (sum of averages, $54.9 million per drug; mean difference, $326.0 million; 95% CI, $235.6-$416.4 million; 2-tailed paired t test P < .001). More than 90% of NIH funding came through cooperative agreements or program projects and centers, while 3.3% of NIH funding came through investigator-initiated research projects. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, NIH funding for phased clinical development of drugs approved between 2010 and 2019 represented a small fraction of NIH spending on pharmaceutical innovation. This spending focused primarily on early-phase clinical trials and research capacity and was significantly less than estimated industry spending on clinical development. These results may inform the efficient allocation of government funding to advance pharmaceutical innovation.

Indexed as

Drug DevelopmentNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)Cross-Sectional StudiesHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsResearch PersonnelUnited StatesPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID37450296
PMCPMC10349341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.