Woodcock Cites a “Turning Point” in Drug Development

Some drugmakers have blamed what they see as a slow and overly cautious FDA for the industry’s weak pipelines. Last week, I cited drug-approval figures to show that the agency was not standing in the way of innovation. A closer look at the figures contradicts another part of the critics’ argument—the industry’s pipelines may not be so weak after all.
So far this year, FDA has approved 20 new molecular entities (NMEs), according to The Wall Street Journal. That’s nearly the same number of NMEs that the agency approved throughout all of 2010. “We’re seeing a lot of innovation, much more than in recent memory,” Janet Woodcock, director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, told The Wall Street Journal. She went as far as to say that the industry had reached a “turning point” in drug development.
The change in the industry’s approach to research seems to be helping to enhance its development productivity. Many companies have shifted from an expensive, and potentially wasteful, “mass production” approach to one that relies on collaboration. Bristol-Myers Squibb’s (BMS) recently approved melanoma drug was originally discovered by a scientist at the University of California, Berkeley. The scientist worked with small biotech company Medarex to develop the drug, which eventually appeared on BMS’s radar. After BMS and Medarex formed a partnership, the rest was history. Shire also has used this collaborative strategy successfully.
Woodcock’s comments reaffirm my belief in the industry’s ability to market innovative drugs that improve patients’ lives. If the pace of NME approvals continues at its current level, it will soften the blow of the patent cliff for many companies. Maybe reports of Big Pharma’s impending death are greatly exaggerated.
Is there any way to include way to email article to friend? You have some specific articles that I’d like to email to myself to have on file. Thanks in advance for your help.
Erik,
I certainly hope you are right.
A cautionary note before we announce, prematurely, that pharma’s R&D problems have been solved. The approval of NME’s is the results of many years of basic research and development.
1. Is it possible that this may be an unusual confluence of NME
approvals, and nothing more than a bumper crop year?
2. Don’t we need to see this trend continue for a decade or more in
order to say with certainty that we have turned the corner on the
R&D drought of the pharma industry? One year does not make a
trend.
This is hopeful, and we will have to see what future years bring.