{"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":null,"pages":null},"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.
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