Everyone Wants Pharmaceutical Breakthroughs. What Drives Drug Companies to Pursue Them?
Skip to content
Innovation Healthcare Sep 6, 2018

Every­one Wants Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal Break­throughs. What Dri­ves Drug Com­pa­nies to Pur­sue Them?

A new study sug­gests that firms are at their most inno­v­a­tive after a finan­cial windfall.

Drug innovation at a pharmaceutical company

Michael Meier

Based on the research of

Joshua Krieger

Danielle Li

Dimitris Papanikolaou

When choos­ing which new prod­ucts to devel­op, com­pa­nies must decide how much they want to inno­vate. Should they make an incre­men­tal improve­ment on an exist­ing prod­uct? Or should they cre­ate some­thing entire­ly new?

Add Insight
to your inbox.

We’ll send you one email a week with content you actually want to read, curated by the Insight team.

Dim­itris Papaniko­laou, a pro­fes­sor of finance at Kel­logg, explored how this choice plays out in the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal industry. 

Some researchers argue that phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal firms these days are often mak­ing minor changes to exist­ing med­ica­tions instead of deliv­er­ing inno­v­a­tive drugs. And, giv­en the poten­tial life-sav­ing and life-improv­ing pow­er of new drugs, such a trend would have clear con­se­quences for society. 

Break­throughs are becom­ing less fre­quent,” Papaniko­laou says. 

To mea­sure what is hap­pen­ing in the indus­try, he and coau­thors devel­oped a method to quan­ti­fy a medication’s lev­el of nov­el­ty and applied it to a data­base of more than 64,000 drugs. They found that more inno­v­a­tive ther­a­pies had a low­er chance of being approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Admin­is­tra­tion (FDA). On the oth­er hand, those that did pass this hur­dle tend­ed to be more effec­tive and lucra­tive than so-called me too” drugs, which are vari­a­tions on exist­ing medications. 

Yet the researchers found that firms were eager to work on nov­el drugs — under the right finan­cial cir­cum­stances. When phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies got a wind­fall, such as a sud­den increase in prof­its, they were more like­ly to spend it on devel­op­ing nov­el drugs than on incre­men­tal improve­ments. The reverse, of course, is also like­ly true, Papaniko­laou says. Firms may be held back from pur­su­ing inno­v­a­tive ther­a­pies because they lack the cash to turn their finan­cial­ly riski­er ideas into reality. 

These finan­cial fric­tions may be lim­it­ing inno­va­tion,” says Papaniko­laou, who col­lab­o­rat­ed with Joshua Krieger of Har­vard Busi­ness School and Danielle Li of MIT Sloan School of Man­age­ment on the research. If soci­ety wants to encour­age more nov­el drugs, he says, one solu­tion would be to increase the sup­ply of cap­i­tal to these firms. 

A Yard­stick for Drug Inno­va­tion

Papaniko­laou and his coau­thors tack­led the issue by first con­sid­er­ing how to define inno­va­tion. In the past, researchers often mea­sured nov­el­ty by count­ing, say, the num­ber of new drugs or patents a firm pro­duced. But these meth­ods didn’t cap­ture whether the ther­a­pies were inno­v­a­tive or me too” drugs. 

Instead, Papaniko­laou and col­leagues exam­ined the chem­i­cal struc­tures of indi­vid­ual drugs that were being devel­oped. In gen­er­al, mol­e­cules that are chem­i­cal­ly sim­i­lar tend to have sim­i­lar func­tions. So to mea­sure nov­el­ty, the researchers used recent advances in bioin­for­mat­ics to com­pare each med­ica­tion in a large drug data­base to every drug devel­oped before it. The algo­rithm, which was devel­oped by researchers at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Cal­i­for­nia, River­side, returned a score that cap­tured the chem­i­cal sim­i­lar­i­ty between each pair of drugs. The team then iden­ti­fied the max­i­mum sim­i­lar­i­ty score for that med­ica­tion — that is, how sim­i­lar it was to its clos­est neigh­bor.” The low­er the score, the more inno­v­a­tive the drug.

Good ideas may not always be able to be financed.” 

The team found that from 1999 to 2014, the aver­age nov­el­ty of drugs declined. This trend was part­ly due to the fact that the num­ber of exist­ing med­ica­tions grew. But even when the researchers com­pared each drug only to those devel­oped dur­ing the pre­vi­ous five years, the pat­tern persisted. 

Papaniko­laou cau­tions that this doesn’t nec­es­sar­i­ly mean all areas of inno­va­tion are declin­ing in the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal indus­try. The researchers’ method of mea­sur­ing nov­el­ty worked only on small-mol­e­cule drugs; more com­plex bio­log­ic” drugs — con­sist­ing of mol­e­cules such as pro­teins or sug­ars — were exclud­ed from the analy­sis. While these bio­log­ic med­ica­tions occu­py a small frac­tion of the mar­ket­place, they are a major source of inno­va­tion, he says. 

A Fail­ure or a Blockbuster?

Next, the researchers inves­ti­gat­ed the risks and rewards of devel­op­ing nov­el drugs. 

They found that, on aver­age, an inno­v­a­tive drug was less like­ly to pass reg­u­la­to­ry hur­dles. A drug with a nov­el­ty score that was one stan­dard devi­a­tion high­er than anoth­er med­ica­tion for the same dis­ease pro­duced around the same time had a 29 per­cent low­er chance of FDA approval. 

If you’re try­ing some­thing that hasn’t been tried before, you’re more like­ly to fail,” Papaniko­laou says. 

But inno­v­a­tive drugs that did get approved per­formed bet­ter on sev­er­al measures. 

A one stan­dard devi­a­tion increase in nov­el­ty was linked to a 33 per­cent rise in the like­li­hood of being cat­e­go­rized as high­ly impor­tant by Haute Autorité de San­té, a French health­care orga­ni­za­tion that eval­u­ates med­ical prod­ucts and issues treat­ment guide­lines. It was also asso­ci­at­ed with 10 – 33 per­cent more cita­tions for patents relat­ed to the drug. Rev­enue gen­er­at­ed from the med­ica­tion was approx­i­mate­ly 15 – 35 per­cent high­er. And the firm’s stock val­ue increased by 2 – 8 per­cent more upon announce­ment of FDA approval. 

The results sug­gest that while nov­el drugs may be less like­ly to get through the approval process, they have more upside poten­tial for the com­pa­ny and for patients. 

If you want to have a block­buster drug, that’s the way,” Papaniko­laou says. 

An Influx of Cash

Still, ques­tions about firms’ atti­tudes toward nov­el drugs remained. Giv­en the risk of fail­ure, did com­pa­nies view inno­v­a­tive prod­ucts as a worth­while investment? 

Ide­al­ly, the researchers would have per­formed a con­trolled exper­i­ment to find out whether firms respond­ed to an influx of mon­ey by devel­op­ing nov­el ver­sus me-too drugs. 

We would ran­dom­ly drop heli­copters of cash on firms,” Papaniko­laou says. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, that can­not be done.” 

Instead, the team took advan­tage of a nat­ur­al exper­i­ment. In 2006, the U.S. gov­ern­ment rolled out Medicare Part D, which increased insur­ance cov­er­age of pre­scrip­tion drugs for old­er patients. So phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies that already man­u­fac­tured med­ica­tions for this age group were like­ly to become more prof­itable. That’s almost the same as me giv­ing out mon­ey,” Papaniko­laou says. 

This nat­ur­al exper­i­ment wasn’t per­fect, how­ev­er. Ide­al­ly, all oth­er fac­tors in the firms’ envi­ron­ment would remain the same. But Medicare Part D had anoth­er side effect. It increased the incen­tive for com­pa­nies to devel­op more drugs for the elder­ly so that they could cash in on the ben­e­fits of the new reg­u­la­tions. If the researchers sim­ply com­pared drug-devel­op­ment trends between firms whose drugs were most­ly used by the elder­ly to oth­er firms dur­ing this time, it would be unclear whether changes were due to the increase in prof­its or the new incentives. 

Papaniko­laou and his col­leagues devised a way to get around this con­found­ing fac­tor. At some firms, the patents on drugs were about to expire, so any addi­tion­al prof­it from Medicare Part D would be short-lived. At oth­er firms, the patents still had a lot of life left in them, so those firms would like­ly ben­e­fit finan­cial­ly from the reg­u­la­tions for a long time. By com­par­ing com­pa­nies with dif­fer­ing patent expi­ra­tion dates — among the firms with pre­scrip­tion drugs for old­er patients — the researchers could iso­late the effects of prof­its on drug development. 

Financ­ing Poten­tial Block­buster Drugs

The team found that firms that reaped more prof­its tend­ed to devel­op more drugs — and those med­ica­tions were more like­ly to be nov­el. Addi­tion­al­ly, many were tar­get­ed at younger patients, not the elder­ly. This con­firmed that the increase in inno­v­a­tive drugs was not caused just by the greater incen­tives for drugs for old­er customers. 

This can only be due to cash-flow shock,” Papaniko­laou says. 

The typ­i­cal finan­cial advice for a com­pa­ny with a good idea but not enough cash on hand is that it should raise mon­ey — say, by tak­ing out a loan or issu­ing shares. But the study sug­gests that even large phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal firms may have trou­ble doing this. 

Good ideas may not always be able to be financed,” he says. 

Papaniko­laou notes a cou­ple impor­tant caveats. One is that the study assumes that firm man­agers make drug-devel­op­ment deci­sions to fur­ther best inter­ests of share­hold­ers — rather than pri­or­i­tiz­ing their own pet projects or careers. The oth­er is that nov­el drugs may not nec­es­sar­i­ly be bet­ter for soci­ety. It is pos­si­ble that me-too drugs ben­e­fit patients more because they low­er prices and increase competition. 

But regard­less of how inno­v­a­tive drugs affect soci­ety, it appears that phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies con­sid­er them worth­while invest­ments — when they have extra cash on hand. 

Firms seem to per­ceive them as more valu­able,” Papaniko­laou says.

About the Writer

Roberta Kwok is a freelance science writer based near Seattle.

About the Research

Krieger, Joshua, Danielle Li, and Dimitris Papanikolaou. 2018. “Developing Novel Drugs.” Working paper.

Read the original

Suggested For You

Most Popular

Organizations

How Are Black – White Bira­cial Peo­ple Per­ceived in Terms of Race?

Under­stand­ing the answer — and why black and white Amer­i­cans’ respons­es may dif­fer — is increas­ing­ly impor­tant in a mul­tira­cial society.

Careers

Pod­cast: Our Most Pop­u­lar Advice on Advanc­ing Your Career

Here’s how to con­nect with head­hunters, deliv­er with data, and ensure you don’t plateau professionally.

Most Popular Podcasts

Careers

Pod­cast: Our Most Pop­u­lar Advice on Improv­ing Rela­tion­ships with Colleagues

Cowork­ers can make us crazy. Here’s how to han­dle tough situations.

Social Impact

Pod­cast: How You and Your Com­pa­ny Can Lend Exper­tise to a Non­prof­it in Need

Plus: Four ques­tions to con­sid­er before becom­ing a social-impact entrepreneur.

Careers

Pod­cast: Attract Rock­star Employ­ees — or Devel­op Your Own

Find­ing and nur­tur­ing high per­form­ers isn’t easy, but it pays off.

Marketing

Pod­cast: How Music Can Change Our Mood

A Broad­way song­writer and a mar­ket­ing pro­fes­sor dis­cuss the con­nec­tion between our favorite tunes and how they make us feel.