IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/24026.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Characterizing the Drug Development Pipeline for Precision Medicines

Author

Listed:
  • Amitabh Chandra
  • Craig Garthwaite
  • Ariel Dora Stern

Abstract

Precision medicines – therapies that rely on the use of genetic, epigenetic, and protein biomarkers – create a better match between patients with specific disease subtypes and medications that are more effective for those patients. This heterogeneity in response has implications for the decision to develop therapies, their pricing, the design of clinical trials, and the relative importance of smaller biotech companies versus more traditional companies in pursuing early stage R&D. To understand the scope of these effects, we use a comprehensive database of over 130,000 global clinical trials and describe the drug development pipeline for precision medicines over the past two decades. We identify clinical trials for likely precision medicines (LPMs) as those that use one or more relevant biomarkers. We then further segment trials based on the nature of the biomarker(s) used and other trial features with economic implications. Since cancers represent a disease setting in which precision therapies are already successfully used, and since cancer applications of precision medicine are expected to grow rapidly over the coming years, we separately characterize cancer LPMs. Finally, we consider the types of firms pursuing R&D in precision medicines, considering how LPM R&D activities have evolved over recent years.

Suggested Citation

  • Amitabh Chandra & Craig Garthwaite & Ariel Dora Stern, 2017. "Characterizing the Drug Development Pipeline for Precision Medicines," NBER Working Papers 24026, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:24026
    Note: EH IO PE PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w24026.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pierre Dubois & Olivier de Mouzon & Fiona Scott-Morton & Paul Seabright, 2015. "Market size and pharmaceutical innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(4), pages 844-871, October.
    2. D. Donaldson & A. Costinot, & Margaret Kyle & H. Williams,, 2016. "The More We Die, The More We Sell? A Simple Test of the Home-Market Effect," Working Papers hal-01448517, HAL.
    3. Fiona M. Scott Morton, 1999. "Entry Decisions in the Generic Pharmaceutical Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(3), pages 421-440, Autumn.
    4. Arnaud Costinot & Dave Donaldson & Margaret Kyle & Heidi Williams, 2019. "The More We Die, The More We Sell? A Simple Test of the Home-Market Effect," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 843-894.
    5. Fiona M. Scott Morton, 1999. "Entry Decisions in the Generic Pharmaceutical Industry," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm119, Yale School of Management.
    6. Daron Acemoglu & Joshua Linn, 2004. "Market Size in Innovation: Theory and Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(3), pages 1049-1090.
    7. Deepak Hegde & Bhaven Sampat, 2015. "Can Private Money Buy Public Science? Disease Group Lobbying and Federal Funding for Biomedical Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(10), pages 2281-2298, October.
    8. Ernst R. Berndt & Rena M. Conti & Stephen J. Murphy, 2017. "The Landscape of US Generic Prescription Drug Markets, 2004-2016," NBER Working Papers 23640, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Eric Budish & Benjamin N. Roin & Heidi Williams, 2015. "Do Firms Underinvest in Long-Term Research? Evidence from Cancer Clinical Trials," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(7), pages 2044-2085, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nicholas Bagley & Benjamin Berger & Amitabh Chandra & Craig Garthwaite & Ariel D. Stern, 2018. "The Orphan Drug Act at 35: Observations and an Outlook for the Twenty-First Century," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 19, pages 97-137, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. David Dranove & Craig Garthwaite & Manuel Hermosilla, 2022. "Does consumer demand pull scientifically novel drug innovation?," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 53(3), pages 590-638, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael D. Frakes & Melissa F. Wasserman, 2020. "Investing in Ex Ante Regulation: Evidence from Pharmaceutical Patent Examination," NBER Working Papers 27579, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Iain M. Cockburn & Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2016. "Patents and the Global Diffusion of New Drugs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(1), pages 136-164, January.
    3. Gamba, Simona & Magazzini, Laura & Pertile, Paolo, 2021. "R&D and market size: Who benefits from orphan drug legislation?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    4. Heidi L. Williams, 2016. "Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from Health Care Markets," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 53-87.
    5. Fabian Gaessler & Stefan Wagner, 2022. "Patents, Data Exclusivity, and the Development of New Drugs," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(3), pages 571-586, May.
    6. Patricia M. Danzon & Eric L. Keuffel, 2014. "Regulation of the Pharmaceutical-Biotechnology Industry," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Regulation and Its Reform: What Have We Learned?, pages 407-484, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Mark Pauly & Kyle Myers, 2016. "A Ricardian-Demand Explanation for Changing Pharmaceutical R&D Productivity," NBER Working Papers 22720, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Bastian Rake, 2017. "Determinants of pharmaceutical innovation: the role of technological opportunities revisited," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 691-727, September.
    9. Leila Agha & Soomi Kim & Danielle Li, 2020. "Insurance Design and Pharmaceutical Innovation," NBER Working Papers 27563, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Agarwal, Ruchir & Gaule, Patrick, 2022. "What drives innovation? Lessons from COVID-19 R&D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    11. Kevin A. Bryan & Heidi L. Williams, 2021. "Innovation: Market Failures and Public Policies," NBER Working Papers 29173, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Jeffrey P. Clemens & Parker Rogers, 2020. "Demand Shocks, Procurement Policies, and the Nature of Medical Innovation: Evidence from Wartime Prosthetic Device Patents," CESifo Working Paper Series 8781, CESifo.
    13. Clark, Robert & Fabiilli, Christopher & Lasio, Laura, 2022. "Collusion in the US generic drug industry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    14. Kyle, Margaret K., 2022. "Incentives for pharmaceutical innovation: What’s working, what’s lacking," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    15. Jeffrey P. Clemens & Morten Olsen, 2021. "Medicare and the Rise of American Medical Patenting: The Economics of User-Driven Innovation," CESifo Working Paper Series 9008, CESifo.
    16. Jeffrey Clemens, 2012. "The Effect of U.S. Health Insurance Expansions on Medical Innovation," Discussion Papers 11-016, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    17. Lee Branstetter & Chirantan Chatterjee & Matthew J. Higgins, 2016. "Regulation and welfare: evidence from paragraph IV generic entry in the pharmaceutical industry," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(4), pages 857-890, November.
    18. Manuel Ammann & Rachel Berchtold & Ralf Seiz, 2011. "Demographic Change and Pharmaceuticals' Stock Returns," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 17(4), pages 726-754, September.
    19. Gianni Amisano & Maria Letizia Giorgetti, 2013. "Entry Into Pharmaceutical Submarkets: A Bayesian Panel Probit Analysis," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 667-701, June.
    20. Kalcheva, Ivalina & McLemore, Ping & Pant, Shagun, 2018. "Innovation: The interplay between demand-side shock and supply-side environment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 440-461.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
    • L5 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:24026. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.