Refine
Document Type
- Journal article (10)
- Book chapter (5)
- Book (1)
Language
- English (16) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (16)
Institute
- Life Sciences (16)
Publisher
- Elsevier (4)
- Wiley (4)
- BioMed Central (3)
- Springer (2)
- National Library of Medicine (1)
- Ochre Media (1)
- Taylor & Francis Group (1)
In the period from the 1950s to 2013, the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 1346 new molecular entities (NMEs) or new biologics entities (NBEs). On average, the approval rate was 20 NMEs per year. In the past 40 years, the number of new drugs launched into the market increased slightly from 15 NMEs in the 1970s to 25–30 NMEs since the 1990s. The highest number of new drugs approved by FDA was in 1996 and 1997, which might be related to the enactment of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) in 1993.
Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, such as machine learning or deep learning, have been predicted to highly impact future organizations and radically change the way how projects are managed. The Project Management Institute (PMI), the network of around 1.1 million certified project managers, ranked AI as one of the top three disruptors of their profession. In an own study on the effect of AI, 37% of the project management processes can be executed by machine learning and other AI technologies. In addition, Gartner recently postulated that 80% of the work of today's project managers may be eliminated by AI in 2030.
This editorial aims to outline today's project and portfolio management in context of pharmaceutical research and development (R&D), followed by an AI-vision and a more tangible mission, and illustrate what the consequences of an AI-enabled project and portfolio management could be for pharmaceutical R&D.
Today, virtualizing pharma R&D is increasingly related with data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI), technologies that have been developed by software companies outside the healthcare sector. The process of virtualizing pharma R&D is closely related to the technological advancements that result in the generation of large data sets ranging from genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, medical imaging, IoT wearables and large clinical trials, making it necessary for pharma companies to find new ways to store and ultimately analyze information. As a consequence, pharma companies are experimenting with AI in R&D ranging from in-silico drug design to clinical trail participants identification or dosage error reduction.
Research and Development (R&D) is crucial for the growth and future success of research-based pharma companies. To maintain their R&D organisations efficient, pharmaceutical companies started to hedge the potential of open innovation to cut R&D costs and to access external knowledge. These new strategies could be divided into several categories: open source, innovation centres, crowd sourcing and virtual R&D.
We investigated the state of artificial intelligence (AI) in pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) and outline here a risk and reward perspective regarding digital R&D. Given the novelty of the research area, a combined qualitative and quantitative research method was chosen, including the analysis of annual company reports, investor relations information, patent applications, and scientific publications of 21 pharmaceutical companies for the years 2014 to 2019. As a result, we can confirm that the industry is in an ‘early mature’ phase of using AI in R&D. Furthermore, we can demonstrate that, despite the efforts that need to be managed, recent developments in the industry indicate that it is worthwhile to invest to become a ‘digital pharma player’.
Pharmaceutical companies are among the top investors into research and development (R&D) globally, as product innovation is still the main growth driver for the industry and because the related complexities necessitate enormous R&D investments. The market demand for new medicines to be more efficacious or to provide better safety than existing drugs and the regulatory need to prove superiority in clinical trials are reasons why drug R&D is increasingly expensive and pharmaceutical companies need to manage extraordinarily high costs per approved new compound.
Comparative analysis of the R&D efficiency of 14 leading pharmaceutical companies for the years 1999–2018 shows that there is a close positive correlation between R&D spending and the two investigated R&D output parameters, approved NMEs and the cumulative impact factor of their publications. In other words, higher R&D investments (input) were associated with higher R&D output. Second, our analyses indicate that there are "economies of scale" (size) in pharmaceutical R&D.
In the era of precision medicine, digital technologies and artificial intelligence, drug discovery and development face unprecedented opportunities for product and business model innovation, fundamentally changing the traditional approach of how drugs are discovered, developed and marketed. Critical to this transformation is the adoption of new technologies in the drug development process, catalyzing the transition from serendipity-driven to data-driven medicine. This paradigm shift comes with a need for both translation and precision, leading to a modern Translational Precision Medicine approach to drug discovery and development. Key components of Translational Precision Medicine are multi-omics profiling, digital biomarkers, model-based data integration, artificial intelligence, biomarker-guided trial designs and patient-centric companion diagnostics. In this review, we summarize and critically discuss the potential and challenges of Translational Precision Medicine from a cross-industry perspective.
New drugs serving unmet medical needs are one of the key value drivers of research-based pharmaceutical companies. The efficiency of research and development (R&D), defined as the successful approval and launch of new medicines (output) in the rate of the monetary investments required for R&D (input), has declined since decades. We aimed to identify, analyze and describe the factors that impact the R&D efficiency. Based on publicly available information, we reviewed the R&D models of major research-based pharmaceutical companies and analyzed the key challenges and success factors of a sustainable R&D output. We calculated that the R&D efficiencies of major research-based pharmaceutical companies were in the range of USD 3.2–32.3 billion (2006–2014). As these numbers challenge the model of an innovation-driven pharmaceutical industry, we analyzed the concepts that companies are following to increase their R&D efficiencies: (A) Activities to reduce portfolio and project risk, (B) activities to reduce R&D costs, and (C) activities to increase the innovation potential. While category A comprises measures such as portfolio management and licensing, measures grouped in category B are outsourcing and risk-sharing in late-stage development. Companies made diverse steps to increase their innovation potential and open innovation, exemplified by open source, innovation centers, or crowdsourcing, plays a key role in doing so. In conclusion, research-based pharmaceutical companies need to be aware of the key factors, which impact the rate of innovation, R&D cost and probability of success. Depending on their company strategy and their R&D set-up they can opt for one of the following open innovators: knowledge creator, knowledge integrator or knowledge leverager.
Historically, research and development (R&D) in the pharmaceutical sector has predominantly been an in-house activity. To enable investments for game changing late-stage assets and to enable better and less costly go/no-go decisions, most companies have employed a fail early paradigm through the implementation of clinical proof-of-concept organizations. To fuel their pipelines, some pioneers started to complement their internal R&D efforts through collaborations as early as the 1990s. In recent years, multiple extrinsic and intrinsic factors induced an opening for external sources of innovation and resulted in new models for open innovation, such as open sourcing, crowdsourcing, public–private partnerships, innovations centres, and the virtualization of R&D. Three factors seem to determine the breadth and depth regarding how companies approach external innovation: (1) the company’s legacy, (2) the company’s willingness and ability to take risks and (3) the company’s need to control IP and competitors. In addition, these factors often constitute the major hurdles to effectively leveraging external opportunities and assets. Conscious and differential choices of the R&D and business models for different companies and different divisions in the same company seem to best allow a company to fully exploit the potential of both internal and external innovations.