Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Opinion
  • Published:

Opinion

Prospects for productivity

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery volume 3, pages 451–456 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

Long-term declines in the productivity of pharmaceutical R&D threaten the sustainability of the current business model. A major driver of the decline has been the rising cost, and increased rate of failure, of projects across the industry, caused in part by the confluence of new approaches, novel technologies, higher go/no-go hurdles and organizational challenges. Here we examine several of the top culprits that are charged with driving this decline and the merits of the cases against them, and speculate on the emerging trends that will underpin the industry's future productivity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: A 30-year decline in industry productivity.
Figure 2: Less-validated targets and bigger, greasier molecules.
Figure 3: FDA's NDA approval rates have not changed much over time.
Figure 4: Big Pharma's shrinking contribution.
Figure 5: Clinical development is increasingly costly and constrained.
Figure 6: In-licensing will probably continue to grow in its importance as a source of innovation for Big Pharma.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Grabowski, H. G. Public policy and pharmaceutical innovation. Health Care Financ. Rev. 4, 75–87 (1982).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Fruits of Genomics (Lehman Brothers, New York, 2001).

  3. Edmunds, R. et al. Splicing a cost squeeze into the genomics revolution. McKinsey Quarterly 2, 15–18 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hopkins, A. & Groom, C. The druggable genome. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 1, 727–730 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ma, P. & Zemmel, R. Value of novelty? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 1, 571–572 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Booth, B. & Zemmel, R. Quest for the best. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 838–841 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B. W. & Feeney, P. J. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 23, 3–25 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wenlock, M. C., Austin, R. P., Barton, P., Davis, A. M. & Leeson, P. D. A comparison of physiochemical property profiles of development and marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 46, 1250–1256 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vieth, M. et al. Characteristic physical properties and structural fragments of marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 47, 224–232 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sneader, W. Drug Prototypes and their Exploitation (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ostholm, I. Drug Discovery: A Pharmacist's Story (Swedish Pharmaceutical, Stockholm, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Horrobin, D. F. Innovation in pharmaceuticals. J. R. Soc. Med. 93, 341–345 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Horrobin, D. F. Modern biomedical research: an internally self-consistent universe with little contact with medical reality. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 151–154 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Erickson, D. Wanted: drug hunters. In Vivo 45, (2003).

  15. Reichert, J. M. & Paquette, C. Therapeutic recombinant proteins: trends in US approvals 1982 to 2002. Curr. Opin. Mol. Ther. 5, 139–147 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank several McKinsey colleagues for their support and hard work in helping pull together the analyses in this review, including J. Hong, D. Lennon, P. Ma and E. McCafferty.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. McKinsey & Company, 55 East 52nd Street, New York, 10055, NY, USA

    Bruce Booth

  2. McKinsey & Company, 55 East 52nd Street, New York, 10055, NY, USA

    Rodney Zemmel

Authors
  1. Bruce Booth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rodney Zemmel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce Booth.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Related links

Related links

FURTHER INFORMATION

PhRMA

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Booth, B., Zemmel, R. Prospects for productivity. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3, 451–456 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1384

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1384

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing