Innovation crisis in drug research is a myth, warn experts

August 7, 2012

They say the real crisis stems from current incentives that reward companies for developing large numbers of new drugs with few clinical advantages over existing ones.

Since the early 2000s, numerous articles and reports have claimed that the pipeline for will soon run dry, write Donald Light from the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey and Joel Lexchin from York University in Toronto. Yet data indicate that the number of new drugs licensed remains at the long term average range of 15-25 a year.

The authors argue that telling "innovation crisis" stories to politicians and the press "serves as a ploy to attract a range of government protections from free market competition."

Furthermore, independent reviews have concluded that about 85-90% of all new drugs over the past 50 years have provided few benefits and considerable harms.

And, although the industry emphasises how much money it devotes to discovering new drugs, they say most research funds go towards developing scores of minor variations that produce a steady stream of profits. Heavy promotion of these drugs can account for up to 80% of a nation's drug spending, they add.

They also warn that companies exaggerate research and development costs to lobby for more protection from free market competition. Yet, according to an independent analysis, the 1.3% of revenues devoted to discovering new compares with an estimated 25% spent on promotion, giving a ratio of basic research to marketing of 1:19.

So, what can be done to change the business model of the to focus on more cost effective, safer medicines, they ask?

The first step should be to stop approving so many new drugs of little . "EU countries are paying billions more than necessary for drugs that provide little health gain because prices are not being set to reward new drugs in proportion to their clinical value," they say.

They also believe that regulators should be publicly funded "to end industry's capture of its regulator" and that new ways of rewarding innovation should be considered. "This approach would save countries billions in healthcare costs and produce real gains for people's health, they conclude.

A second article argues that manufacturers should have to show how their products compare to existing treatments before approval Jonathan Cylus from the London School of Economics and colleagues say that the benefits of requiring comparative evidence for new drugs outweigh the risks, and would help ensure that the best therapies reach patients.

Raising the evidence standards could also encourage manufacturers to concentrate on the development of new drugs in therapeutic areas with few or no alternatives, they add.

Explore further: New drugs should be compared with existing treatments before approval, say experts

More information:
www.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.e4348
www.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.e4261

Related Stories

New drugs should be compared with existing treatments before approval, say experts

September 7, 2011
Manufacturers should have to show how their drugs compare to existing treatments before approval to help ensure that the most beneficial and safest therapies reach patients and that limited healthcare resources are invested ...

India probes charges of violations by drugs regulator

May 10, 2012
India's Health Ministry said Thursday it was examining charges that the government's top drug regulatory agency had colluded with pharmaceutical firms to approve drugs without proper clinical trials.

Indian expert panel to probe drugs regulator

May 11, 2012
India's Health Ministry said Friday it had set up an expert panel to review the operations of its drug regulatory agency, accused of colluding with pharmaceutical firms to approve drugs without trials.

Recommended for you

Fighting opioid addiction in primary care—new study shows it's possible

October 18, 2017
For many of the 2 million Americans addicted to opioids, getting good treatment and getting off prescription painkillers or heroin may seem like a far-off dream.

With no morphine, 25 million die in pain each year: report

October 13, 2017
Every year, some 25 million people—one in ten of them children—die in serious pain that could have been alleviated with morphine at just a few cents per dose, researchers said Friday.

Study finds few restrictions on Rx opioids through Medicare

October 9, 2017
Medicare plans place few restrictions on the coverage of prescription opioids, despite federal guidelines recommending such restrictions, a new Yale study finds. The research results highlight an untapped opportunity for ...

Nocebo effect: Does a drug's high price tag cause its own side effects?

October 5, 2017
Pricey drugs may make people more vulnerable to perceiving side effects, a new study suggests—and the phenomenon is not just "in their heads."

Pre-packaged brand version of compounded medication to prevent preterm births costs 5,000 percent more

October 2, 2017
Preventing a preterm birth could cost as little as $200 or as much as $20,000, depending on which one of two medications a doctor orders, according to a new analysis from Harvard Medical School.

Cancer drugs' high prices not justified by cost of development, study contends

September 12, 2017
(HealthDay)— Excusing the sky-high price tags of many new cancer treatments, pharmaceutical companies often blame high research and development (R&D) costs.

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.