IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ohe/shealt/000337.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Pharmaceutical Innovation: Recent Trends, Future Prospects

Author

Listed:
  • Nick Wells

Abstract

Therapeutic progress in recent decades has made a major contribution to reductions in mortality and has extended control to the symptoms of many chronic diseases. Thus developments in chemotherapy and immunisation have combined with economic, social and environmental improvement to bring about the restructuring of mortality profiles illustrated in Figure 1. The principal change has been of course the dramatic reduction in the number of deaths attributable to infectious disease: between 1951 and 1981 the crude death rate per million population for infective and parasitic diseases fell from 408 to 42, generating a current annual saving of more than 18,000 lives. Within this broad disease grouping the most dramatic improvement has been shown by respiratory tuberculosis. Here the mortality rate has declined by 97 per cent over the same period so that in 1981 there were just 433 deaths from this cause compared with the 13,650 that might have been expected in the absence of any change in the death rate. The impact of anti-infective chemotherapy and effective vaccines has not, however, been restricted to tuberculosis alone: notifications data (Table 1) and mortality statistics (Table 2) indicate that there have also been major reductions in the incidence of and mortality from, for example, diphtheria, acute poliomyelitis, syphilis and whooping cough. One of the consequences of these and other improvements has been a halving of the child mortality rate over the 30 year period to 1981 (when it stood at 31 per 100,000 aged 1—14 years) and thereby the addition of a further three years to average life expectancies at one year of age (Figure 2). The benefits of chemotherapeutic progress have also been directly manifest in diseases other than those resulting from infectious causes. The development, for example, of prophylactic therapy for asthma as well as the selective beta agonist drugs which rapidly effect control of attacks of breathlessness have greatly improved the quality of life and provided psychological assurance for many asthmatics. Similarly, the evolution of nonsteroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs has generated considerable gains for many of the hundreds of thousands of individuals suffering from diseases of the joints and organs of movement by promoting greater mobility and pain control. In both these instances, however, the patient benefits principally assume the form of enhanced well-being and social functioning and as such are not as readily measurable as those associated with advances leading to reductions in mortality or hospital admissions. Indeed, the last 20 years have witnessed a period of 'therapeutic transition' in which new medicines have increasingly fallen into this category, that is they have had a greater impact on the quality of life than on beta blockers for angina and hypertension, the anxiolytics and antidepressants for psychiatric morbidity, preparations for common skin complaints and chemotherapy for gout. Concomitantly, pharmacological advance has played what might be viewed as a more indirect role in facilitating therapeutic progress. Thus the development and refinement of effective local and general anaesthetic agents, muscle relaxants and antibiotics have facilitated a radical extension of the scope for surgical intervention, greatly enhanced the safety of such procedures and played a part in promoting economical short stay surgery. In addition have been reduced by the availability of agents inhibiting extra corporeal blood platelet aggregation and the development of immunosuppressant drugs has laid the foundations for a new era in which transplantation has become a feasible approach to diseased or malfunctioning organs. The health, social and economic benefits (Table 3) attributable to the widening scope for therapeutic intervention coupled with the significant levels of inadequately treated morbidity still remaining in the community have provided a powerful incentive to continued investigation of the causes of, and potential solutions to, disease. As a consequence research expenditures have maintained a steady pattern of increase over time. Spending by the Medical Research Council, for example, has risen from £25 million in 1971/72 to over £106 million in 1981/82 (Figure 3). Financial support for medical research forthcoming from the nation's medical charities was valued at more than £70 million in 1982 having risen from approximately £25 million in 1976 when aggregated data for this sector first became available. Expenditure growth has been most marked, however, in the research and development undertaken by the pharmaceutical industry: spending increased from £29 million in 1970 to £419 million in ig82. Even after the effects of inflation have been taken into account this increase still represented a more than threefold growth in real terms. Yet sustained growth in research and development expenditures to the current level of almost £600 million per annum has not been accompanied by any corresponding acceleration in the number of new medicines becoming available for patient use. Indeed, the opposite has been the case: new market entries - including reformulations, new combinations, additional modes of presentation and new chemical entities — numbered approximately 300 per annum at the beginning of the 1960s, but had declined to less than 100 by the end of the following decade. Focusing on new chemical entities (NCES), the most innovative of these introductions, a similar pattern has emerged: a review by Steward and Wibberley (1980) indicates that over the same period of time marketing rates have halved to the present level of around 20 NCES per annum (Figure 4). This paper therefore sets as one of its central objectives the exploration of these seemingly paradoxical trends. From this analysis it is hoped to identify the essential preconditions that must be fulfilled if the potential for therapeutic advance outlined in another section of the paper is to be fully realised in the coming decades

Suggested Citation

  • Nick Wells, 1983. "Pharmaceutical Innovation: Recent Trends, Future Prospects," Series on Health 000337, Office of Health Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ohe:shealt:000337
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ohe.org/publications/pharmaceutical-innovation-recent-trends-future-prospects/attachment-134-pharmaceutical_innovation_wells_1983/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keith Hartley;Alan Maynard, 1982. "Costs and Benefits of Regulating New Product Development in the UK Pharmaceutical Industry," Occasional Paper 000332, Office of Health Economics.
    2. Office of Health Economics, 1983. "Second Pharmacological Revolution," Monograph 000341, Office of Health Economics.
    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. Office of Health Economics, 1985. "Politics of Prescribing," Briefing 000347, Office of Health Economics.

    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. David Taylor, 1983. "Consumer Movement, Health, and the Pharmaceutical Industry," Monograph 000339, Office of Health Economics.
    2. George Teeling Smith, 1981. "Economic Aspects of the Development of New Medicines," Monograph 000320, Office of Health Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Pharmaceutical Innovation: Recent Trends; Future Prospects;

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health

    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:ohe:shealt:000337. 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: Publications Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ohecouk.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.