The most transformative drugs of the past 25 years: a survey of physicians

Abstract

Strategic and legislative efforts to catalyse pharmaceutical innovation may be hampered by a lack of consensus over what characterizes an innovative drug. To help clarify this issue, we conducted an extensive survey on transformative drug development, involving 180 expert physicians based at 30 leading US academic medical centres, covering 15 medical specialties. In an iterative Delphi process, the survey participants narrowed a list of all new drugs approved in their fields in the past 25 years and reached consensus over those that they considered to be most transformative, which are presented in this article. Participants were also asked how various factors affected their opinion; they most often invoked the effectiveness and superiority of the drugs over existing alternatives when identifying transformative drug innovation.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1

    Munos, B. Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 8, 959–968 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Karberg, S. Biotech's perfect storm. Cell 138, 413–415 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    FitzGerald, G. A. Perestroika in pharma: evolution or revolution in drug development? Mt. Sinai J. Med. 77, 327–332 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Pammolli, F., Magazzini, L. & Riccaboni, M. The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 428–438 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Driving biomedical innovation: initiatives to improve products for patients. FDA website [online] (2011).

  6. 6

    Melese, T., Lin, S. M., Chang, J. L. & Cohen, N. H. Open innovation networks between academia and industry: an imperative for breakthrough therapies. Nature Med. 15, 502–507 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Munos, B. H. & Chin, W. W. How to revive breakthrough innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Sci. Transl. Med. 3, 89cm16 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Kramer, D. B. & Kesselheim, A. S. Users fees and beyond — the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 1277–1279 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Kesselheim, A. S. An empirical review of major legislation affecting drug development: past experiences, effects, and unintended consequences. Milbank Q. 89, 450–502 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Aronson, J. K., Ferner, R. E. & Hughes, D. A. Defining rewardable innovation in drug therapy. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 11, 253–254 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    [No authors listed.] New drugs and indications in 2010: inadequate assessment; patients at risk. Prescrire Int. 20, 105–107; 109–110 (2011).

  12. 12

    Motola, D. et al. Therapeutic innovation in the European Union: analysis of the drugs approved by the EMEA between 1995 and 2003. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 59, 475–478 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Applbaum, K. Getting to yes: corporate power and the creation of a psychopharmaceutical blockbuster. Cult. Med. Psychiatry 33, 185–215 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Augen, J. Industrialized molecular biology, information biotechnology, and the blockbuster drug model — alive and well at age 50. Drug Discov. Today. 7, S157–S159 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Avorn, J. Powerful medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs (Vintage, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Woodcock, J., Sharfstein, J. M. & Hamburg, M. Regulatory action on rosiglitazone by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. N. Engl. J. Med. 363, 1489–1491 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Lindberg, M. & Astrup, A. The role of glitazones in management of type 2 diabetes. A dream or a nightmare? Obes. Rev. 8, 381–384 (2007).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Hollis, A. & Pogge, T. The Health Impact Fund: Making New Medicines Accessible for All (Incentives for Global Health, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Druker, B. J. Perspectives on the development of imatinib and the future of cancer research. Nature Med. 15, 1149–1152 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Fuchs, V. R., Sox, H. C. Jr. Physicians' views of the relative importance of thirty medical innovations. Health Aff. 20, 30–42 (2001).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Linstone, H. A, Murray, T. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications (Addison-Wesley, 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Fink, A., Kosecoff, J., Chassin, M. & Brook, R. H. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am. J. Public Health 74, 979–983 (1984).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Keeney, S., Hasson, F. & McKenna, H. Consulting the oracle: ten lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research. J. Adv. Nurs. 53, 205–212 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    McGlynn, E. A. & Asch, S. M. Developing a clinical performance measure. Am. J. Prev. Med. 14, 14–21 (1998).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Jones, J. & Hunter, D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311, 376–380 (1995).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Murphy, M. K. et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol. Assess. 2, 1–88 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Constas, M. A. Qualitative data analysis as a public event: the documentation of category development procedures. Am. Educ. Res. J. 29, 253–266 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (Aldine De Gruyter, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Berndt, E. R., Cockburn, I. M. & Grépin, K. A. The impact of incremental innovation in biopharmaceuticals: drug utilization in original and supplemental indications. Pharmacoeconomics 24 (Suppl. 2), 69–83 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank C. Stark and V. Gillet for their assistance with the research. The authors also express their appreciation to the 184 physician experts from 30 clinical institutions who participated in the survey that formed the basis of this report.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aaron S. Kesselheim.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information S1 (table)

Lists of potentially transformative drugs presented to survey participants in the medical specialties (PDF 360 kb)

Supplementary information S2 (box)

US-based academic medical centres from which the survey participants were recruited (alphabetical order) (PDF 254 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kesselheim, A., Avorn, J. The most transformative drugs of the past 25 years: a survey of physicians. Nat Rev Drug Discov 12, 425–431 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3977

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter for a daily update on COVID-19 science.
Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing