R&D productivity – what matters in making it a success? Answer: Dropping the lemons early
17.02.14
The generally accepted idea when it comes to size and R&D is that smaller companies are more productive, due to a more entrepreneurial spirit and less red tape. The authors of this December 2013 Nature article dispute this commonly accepted “fact”, however. Based on an analysis of the past decade, examining 842 molecules from 416 different companies, they concluded that there is in fact no correlation between size and R&D productivity. Other factors that didn’t appear to make a difference in R&D success rates in their analysis included such things as location of the company headquarters and market size of the targeted indication. Of course, when discussing what doesn’t work naturally leads us to the question – what does?
According to the study described by the Nature authors, factors that do seem to impact R&D productivity include indicators of “scientific acumen” (i.e. publications and patents per US dollar of R&D expenditure) and such practical matters as having a major R&D facility present in a science hub, which the authors note could provide better access to scientific talent and collaboration networks. Other factors that seem to have a positive impact were labelled as “Indicators of good judgement” – this could be, for instance, a company historically having an R&D leader with a long tenure.
The strongest single correlator with success pinpointed by the authors, however, was the existence of a high termination rate in pre-clinical and Phase I stages. Terminating trials is a difficult decision; but the companies that are able to make these tough choices and end their investment in assets that are unlikely to succeed are able to invest time and energy elsewhere. This is again a reminder of the utmost importance of flexibility and open minds when it comes to achieving successful R&D.
It is always essential to look at the big picture when discussing R&D. We need to look at where the unmet needs are, not only at a national level, but globally. Resources like the WHO Priority Medicines Report – a guiding point for the Strategic Research Agenda of the second Innovative Medicines Initiative – are worth consulting. Projects like IMI also remind us of the need for collaboration in R&D and the benefits that come with joining diverse stakeholders together to approach not only problems in R&D, but issues in access to medicines, inequalities in healthcare, and more. Finally, as I said last week, we need to be able to think creatively and keep open minds – for instance, to admit when a molecule doesn’t have a high chance of succeeding and focus energies elsewhere.
As I’ve said before, the industry can’t do it alone. Successful R&D – and ensuring that patients get access to the results of that R&D – requires the active participation of many stakeholders, from academics to payers, governments and more. If we can push the growing trend towards collaboration and open dialogue further – that will allow not only for more R&D success stories, but also for what I think will be a more successful healthcare system overall.
