Refine
Document Type
- Journal article (11)
- Book chapter (5)
- Book (1)
- Conference proceeding (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (18)
Institute
- Life Sciences (17)
- ESB Business School (2)
Publisher
- Elsevier (5)
- Springer (5)
- Wiley (4)
- Marken-Institut München (1)
- National Library of Medicine (1)
- Ochre Media (1)
- Taylor & Francis (1)
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’.
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.
Pre-clinical evaluation of advanced nerve guide conduits using a novel 3D in vitro testing model
(2018)
Autografts are the current gold standard for large peripheral nerve defects in clinics despite the frequently occurring side effects like donor site morbidity. Hollow nerve guidance conduits (NGC) are proposed alternatives to autografts, but failed to bridge gaps exceeding 3 cm in humans. Internal NGC guidance cues like microfibres are believed to enhance hollow NGCs by giving additional physical support for directed regeneration of Schwann cells and axons. In this study, we report a new 3D in vitro model that allows the evaluation of different intraluminal fibre scaffolds inside a complete NGC. The performance of electrospun polycaprolactone (PCL) microfibres inside 5 mm long polyethylene glycol (PEG) conduits were investigated in neuronal cell and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) cultures in vitro. Z-stack confocal microscopy revealed the aligned orientation of neuronal cells along the fibres throughout the whole NGC length and depth. The number of living cells in the centre of the scaffold was not significantly different to the tissue culture plastic (TCP) control. For ex vivo analysis, DRGs were placed on top of fibre-filled NGCs to simulate the proximal nerve stump. In 21 days of culture, Schwann cells and axons infiltrated the conduits along the microfibres with 2.2 ± 0.37 mm and 2.1 ± 0.33 mm, respectively. We conclude that this in vitro model can help define internal NGC scaffolds in the future by comparing different fibre materials, composites and dimensions in one setup prior to animal testing.
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.
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.
Der Begriff Value-Based-Selling kam erstmals in Europa zur Jahrtausendwende in Mode. Doch so neu ist das wertorientierte Verkaufen nun auch wieder nicht. So wird doch jeder gute Verkäufer dem Kunden stets die Kundenvorteile ausreichend transparent machen. Das war doch schon immer so, auch wenn das früher niemand mit Value Based-Selling bezeichnet hatte. Doch eine kundennutzenorientierte Formulierung im Verkaufsgespräch ist nur eine Seite der Medaille. Der Ansatz des Value-Based Selling geht weit darüber hinaus. Er hat mehr Substanz, als weitläufig bekannt ist.
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.
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.
Clinical development is historically the phase in which a potential new medicine is being tested in phase 2 and phase 3 patient trials to demonstrate the new molecules' efficacy and safety to support the regulatory approval of drugs by health authorities. This relatively focused approach has been considerably expanded by a number of forces from within the pharmaceutical industry and equally important by changes in the healthcare systems. The need to identify the optimal patient population, showstoppers leading to discontinuation of clinical programs, the silent but constant removal of surrogate endpoints for registration, and the increased demand for real-life data which are used to demonstrate the patients' benefit and which have an ever-increasing role for pricing and reimbursement negotiations are today an integral part of this phase.
This chapter will review both the nuts and bolts of clinical development but also recent developments in this area which shape the environment and how the different players have reacted and what options might need to be explored in the future.
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.
