Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

  • Outlook
  • Published:

Competitiveness in follow-on drug R&D: a race or imitation?


The development of 'follow on' or 'me too' drugs — generally defined as a drug with a similar chemical structure or the same mechanism of action as a drug that is already marketed — has attracted contrasting views. Some have argued that follow-on drugs often provide useful alternative or enhanced therapeutic options for particular patients or patient subpopulations, as well as introducing price competition. Others, however, consider that the development of such drugs is duplicative and that the resources needed would be better directed elsewhere. Implicit in some of this criticism is the notion that the development of me-too drugs is undertaken after a first-in-class drug has made it to market and proved commercially successful. In this Perspective, using analysis of development and patent filing histories of entrants to new drug classes in the past five decades, we provide new evidence that the development of multiple new drugs in a given class is better characterized as a race, rather than the imitation of successful products.

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

Access options

Buy this article

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

Figure 1: Speed of entry and development of follow-on drugs.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Angell, M. The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It (Random House, New York, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hollis, A. Comment on “The economics of follow-on drug research and development: trends in entry rates and the timing of development”. Pharmacoeconomics 3, 1187–1192 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Werthheimer, A., Levy, R. & O'Connor, T. Too many drugs? The clinical and economic value of incremental innovations. Res. Hum. Cap. Dev. 14, 77–118 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lu, Z. J. & Comanor, W. S. Strategic pricing of new pharmaceuticals. Rev. Econ. Stat. 80, 108–118 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Towse, A. & Leighton, T. in Risk and Return in the Pharmaceutical Industry (eds Sussex, J. & Marchant, N.) 91–105 (Office of Health Economics, London, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  6. DiMasi, J. A. Price trends for prescription pharmaceuticals: 1995–1999. US Department of Health and Human Services website [online], (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lee, T. H. “Me-too” products — friend or foe? N. Engl. J. Med. 350, 211–212 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. DiMasi, J. A. & Pacquette, C. The economics of follow-on drug research and development: trends in the entry rates and timing of development. Pharmacoeconomics 22, 1–14 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kemp, B. A. in Drug Development and Marketing (ed. Helms, R. B.) (American Enterprise Institute, Washington DC, 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kettler, H. E. Competition Through Innovation, Innovation Through Competition. (Office of Health Economics, London, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Newhouse, J. P., Seiguer, E. & Frank, R. G. Was Part D a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry? Inquiry 44, 15–25 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. DiMasi, J. A. New drug development in the United States from 1963 to 1999. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 69, 286–296 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Scherer, F. M. Time-cost tradeoffs in uncertain empirical research projects. Nav. Res. Logisitc. Q. 13, 71–82 (1966).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Comanor, W. S. & Scherer, F. M. Memorandum on the proposed acquisition by Pfizer of Wyeth. The American Antitrust Institute website [online], (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wastila, L. J., Ulcickas, M. E. & Lasagna, L. The World Health Organization's essential drug list. J. Clin. Res. Drug Dev. 3, 105–113 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Grabowski, H. G., Vernon, J. & DiMasi, J. A. Returns on research and development for 1990s new drug introductions. Pharmacoeconomics 20, 11–29 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. DiMasi, J. A., Hansen, R. W. & Grabowski, H. G. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J. Health Econ. 22, 151–185 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This project was supported, in part, by a grant from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). The research, writing and analysis for this article was conducted independently by the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph A. DiMasi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development is partially funded by unrestricted grants from pharmaceutical companies, contract research organizations, trade associations, niche providers and other corporate interests. The principal investigator, J.A.D., has consulted for the pharmaceutical industry and served as an expert witness in litigation involving pharmaceutical firms.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information Table S1

First-in-class* new drugs, second entrants and time to competitive entry (PDF 410 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

DiMasi, J., Faden, L. Competitiveness in follow-on drug R&D: a race or imitation?. Nat Rev Drug Discov 10, 23–27 (2011).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research