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.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Pre-market development times for biologic versus small-molecule drugs

Nature Biotechnology volume 37, pages 708–711 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

To the Editor — Before approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), prescription drugs must be adequately tested in preclinical studies and clinical trials for safety and efficacy. To allow manufacturers sufficient time to earn a profit on resources invested in conducting these studies, brand-name drugs are protected by patents, which last 20 years from the date of application1. The key patents protecting a drug—such as those associated with the drug’s active ingredient—tend to be filed shortly after the new drug is discovered or synthesized. Thus, longer periods of drug development leading up to FDA approval result in reduced time remaining on this fundamental patent during the post-approval period before market entry by competitors2.

Biologic drugs—complex drugs derived from living cells—are thought to be particularly time- and resource-intensive to develop3. The lengthy development process attributed to biologic drugs was cited by legislators when the US Congress passed the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation (BPCIA) in 2009, which granted new biologics 12 years of guaranteed exclusivity. Similarly, the recently proposed renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)—known as the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA)—would require Canada and Mexico to provide 10 years of exclusivity protections for biologic products for all new drugs4 (Canada currently provides 8 years); expanded biologic exclusivity protections have been proposed in other trade negotiations, such as with Japan5. However, sales of biologic drugs now account for approximately one-third of prescription drug spending in the US, and high prices for these products have led some policymakers and consumer advocates to consider reforms to the BPCIA3,6,7,8.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Fig. 1: Cumulative distribution of time from first patent filing (Patent Priority Date) to FDA approval for biologics versus small molecules.

References

  1. Mossinghoff, G. J. Food Drug Law J. 54, 187–194 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dunn, M. K. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 487–488 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pew Charitable Trusts. Policy proposal: reducing the exclusivity period for biological products. https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2017/09/dsri_policy_proposal_reducing_the_exclusivity_period_for_biological_products.pdf (2017).

  4. Husser, A. Will USMCA affect Canada’s drug prices? Depends on what happens next, experts say. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/usmca-pharma-drugs-prices-cost-1.4846421 (2018).

  5. PhRMA. Response to request for comments on negotiating objectives for a U.S.–Japan trade agreement, 83 Fed. Reg. 54,164 (October 26, 2018). http://phrma-docs.phrma.org/files/dmfile/PhRMA-Comments-on-Negotiating-Objectives-for-U.S.-Japan-Trade-Agreement.pdf (2018).

  6. AARP. 2018 Federal Priorities Letter to OMB. https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/politics/advocacy/2018/01/01-23-18-2018-federal-priorities-letter-final.pdf (2018).

  7. United States Office of Management and Budget. Meeting our greatest challenges: opportunity for all. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/opportunity.pdf (2017).

  8. Roy, A. A market-based plan for affordable prescription drugs. https://freopp.org/a-market-based-plan-for-affordable-prescription-drugs-931e31024e08 (2017).

  9. Mestre-Ferrandiz, J., Sussex, J. & Towse A. The R&D cost of a new medicine. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ohe:monogr:000135 (2012).

  10. DiMasi, J.A. & Grabowski, H.G. The cost of biopharmaceutical R&D: is biotech different? MDE Manage. Decis. Econ. 28, 469–479 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Beall, R.F., Hwang, T.J. & Kesselheim, A.S. Major events in the life course of new drugs, 2000–2016. N. Engl. J. Med. 380, e12 (2019).

  12. United States Food and Drug Administration. CDEr list of licensed biological products with (1) reference product exclusivity and (2) biosimilarity or interchangeability evaluations to date. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/ApprovalApplications/TherapeuticBiologicApplications/Biosimilars/UCM560162.pdf (2018).

  13. Zhou, S. & Johnson, R. Pharmaceutical probability of success. https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/3828687/Alacrita_April2019/PDF/Pharmaceutical-Probability-of-Success.pdf (2018).

  14. Nocera, J. Drug-price transparency won’t end the patent games. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-10-16/humira-patents-show-why-fda-s-drug-price-shaming-won-t-work (2018).

  15. United States Food and Drug Administration. New drugs at FDA: CDER’s New Molecular Entities and New Therapeutic Biological Products. https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DrugInnovation/default.htm (2018).

  16. United States Food and Drug Administration. Drugs@FDA: FDA approved drug products. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/ (2017).

  17. United States Patent and Trade Office. Patent Terms Extended Under 35 USC §156. https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-term-extension/patent-terms-extended-under-35-usc-156 (2017).

  18. Beall, R.F., Darrow, J.J. & Kesselheim, A.S. Value Health 21, 1382–1389 (2018).

  19. Beall, R.F., Darrow, J.J. & Kesselheim, A.S. Drug Discov. Today 24, 20–25 (2019).

  20. Hemphill, C. S. & Sampat, B. N. J. Health Econ. 31, 327–339 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Royal Society of Chemistry. The Merck Index Online https://www.rsc.org/merck-index/search (2018).

  22. European Patent Office. Espacenet Patent Search https://worldwide.espacenet.com/ (2018).

  23. United States Food and Drug Administration. Advancing health through innovation — 2017 new drug therapy approvals. https://www.fda.gov/files/about%20fda/published/2017-New-Drug-Therapy-Approvals-Report.pdf (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the US Patent and Trademark Office for providing access to patent term restoration data. A.S.K.’s work is supported by Arnold Ventures, the Harvard–MIT Center for Regulatory Science, and the Engelberg Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Reed F. Beall, Thomas J. Hwang & Aaron S. Kesselheim

  2. Cummings School of Medicine and O’Brien Institute of Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

    Reed F. Beall

Authors
  1. Reed F. Beall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas J. Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aaron S. Kesselheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reed F. Beall.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Editor’s note: This article has been peer-reviewed.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Figure 1

Supplementary Data

Small- vs. large-molecule development times

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beall, R.F., Hwang, T.J. & Kesselheim, A.S. Pre-market development times for biologic versus small-molecule drugs. Nat Biotechnol 37, 708–711 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0175-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0175-2

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

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