Pharmaceutical Company's Choices of Indication for the First Clinical Projects in Oncological Drug Development in the United States.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Can Wu, Shunsuke Ono
{"title":"Pharmaceutical Company's Choices of Indication for the First Clinical Projects in Oncological Drug Development in the United States.","authors":"Can Wu, Shunsuke Ono","doi":"10.1007/s43441-024-00718-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We analyzed factors shaping the choice of the lead indication (i.e., cancer type) in the first clinical development projects of new oncological drugs in the United States (US), and how the type of pharmaceutical company is related to this choice. We selected 576 new clinical development projects in the US since 2000 for analysis. These projects were characterized according to three potential perspectives detected by multiple correspondence analysis: the morbidity of the cancer type which corresponds to market size of each cancer type, the company's previous experience with the cancer type, and the company's attitude to development risks. Mega firms tend to choose cancer types with higher morbidity (and large-market), previously experienced cancer types, while diverse small firms choose both major and rare cancers and both high- and low-risk projects, indicating that different sizes of firms utilize different development entry patterns. Common tendencies concerning the choice of lead indication were found across all companies. Cancer types the company had developed and launched in the past were more likely to be chosen; cancer types with high five-year survival rates and those with high competition were less likely to be chosen. The study showed that pharmaceutical companies seem to enter clinical development from cancer types where they can demonstrate their strengths and advantages through experience, depending on each cancer type's different market sizes and development difficulties. The results could provide clues for considering what support measures and incentives are appropriate to balance the efficiency of industrial development and the fulfillment of society's unmet medical needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":23084,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-024-00718-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We analyzed factors shaping the choice of the lead indication (i.e., cancer type) in the first clinical development projects of new oncological drugs in the United States (US), and how the type of pharmaceutical company is related to this choice. We selected 576 new clinical development projects in the US since 2000 for analysis. These projects were characterized according to three potential perspectives detected by multiple correspondence analysis: the morbidity of the cancer type which corresponds to market size of each cancer type, the company's previous experience with the cancer type, and the company's attitude to development risks. Mega firms tend to choose cancer types with higher morbidity (and large-market), previously experienced cancer types, while diverse small firms choose both major and rare cancers and both high- and low-risk projects, indicating that different sizes of firms utilize different development entry patterns. Common tendencies concerning the choice of lead indication were found across all companies. Cancer types the company had developed and launched in the past were more likely to be chosen; cancer types with high five-year survival rates and those with high competition were less likely to be chosen. The study showed that pharmaceutical companies seem to enter clinical development from cancer types where they can demonstrate their strengths and advantages through experience, depending on each cancer type's different market sizes and development difficulties. The results could provide clues for considering what support measures and incentives are appropriate to balance the efficiency of industrial development and the fulfillment of society's unmet medical needs.

制药公司对美国肿瘤药物开发首个临床项目适应症的选择。
我们分析了影响美国肿瘤新药首个临床开发项目中主导适应症(即癌症类型)选择的因素,以及制药公司类型与这一选择的关系。我们选择了自 2000 年以来美国的 576 个新临床开发项目进行分析。我们根据多重对应分析发现的三个潜在视角对这些项目进行了特征描述:癌症类型的发病率(与每种癌症类型的市场规模相对应)、公司在癌症类型方面的以往经验以及公司对开发风险的态度。大型企业倾向于选择发病率较高(和市场规模大)的癌症类型,以及以前有经验的癌症类型,而多样化的小型企业则既选择主要癌症,也选择罕见癌症,既选择高风险项目,也选择低风险项目,这表明不同规模的企业采用不同的开发进入模式。所有公司在选择先导适应症方面都有共同倾向。公司过去开发并上市的癌症类型更有可能被选中;五年生存率高的癌症类型和竞争激烈的癌症类型被选中的可能性较小。研究表明,制药公司似乎会根据每种癌症类型的不同市场规模和开发难度,从能够通过经验证明自身实力和优势的癌症类型进入临床开发。研究结果可为考虑采取何种适当的支持措施和激励机制来平衡产业发展的效率和满足社会未满足的医疗需求提供线索。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science MEDICAL INFORMATICS-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.30%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (TIRS) is the official scientific journal of DIA that strives to advance medical product discovery, development, regulation, and use through the publication of peer-reviewed original and review articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor across the spectrum of converting biomedical science into practical solutions to advance human health. The focus areas of the journal are as follows: Biostatistics Clinical Trials Product Development and Innovation Global Perspectives Policy Regulatory Science Product Safety Special Populations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信