Pipeline progress and portfolio management of the top 30 pharma companies over the past two decades

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftArtikelForschungPeer-Review

Autoren

  • Melanie Büssgen
  • Marcel A. Büssgen

Organisationseinheiten

Externe Organisationen

  • Universität Hamburg
Forschungs-netzwerk anzeigen

Details

OriginalspracheEnglisch
Aufsatznummer109
FachzeitschriftJournal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
Jahrgang16
Ausgabenummer1
Frühes Online-Datum28 Sept. 2023
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - 2023

Abstract

For pharmaceutical companies, it is essential to define their long-term corporate strategy. This especially involves the pipeline progress of pharmaceuticals and portfolio management. The objective of this study was to give a broad overview of study durations of the clinical trials from the top 30 pharmaceutical companies worldwide and to investigate what could possibly impact these study durations (e.g., indication areas, companies themselves, etc.) We worked with the clinicaltrials.gov database to examine the pipeline (phase 1–3) and portfolio (after regulatory approval) of the top 30 pharma companies worldwide over 20 years (from 2000–2020). We further calculated the study duration of each clinical study as the difference between the start date and end date. To analyze changes in our measure we estimated multiple linear regression to evaluate the impact of indication areas and companies on the study duration. Most of the clinical studies were conducted in the areas of ONCIM (N = 2720), and META (N = 1993). The indication with the highest study duration was ONCIM (on average 3.9 years per clinical study, SD: 0.8). Values for the study duration vary widely across companies. Mostly they range between 1 and 4 years (e.g., Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) on average 2.2 years per clinical study, SD: 1.0). Correlation analysis showed that study phases were positively correlated with the study duration (+ 0.36, p < 0.000), i.e., the higher the study phase, the higher the study duration. Furthermore, we found that indication areas influenced the study duration significantly (+ 0.17, p < 0.000). However, there were wide variations in effect sizes across indications. The results suggest that different indication areas influence the study duration to different extents. Pipeline progress and portfolio management differ widely between indications, companies and over the years. Research findings could help corporate strategy managers to make more informed decisions regarding their business development strategy.

ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete

Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung

Zitieren

Pipeline progress and portfolio management of the top 30 pharma companies over the past two decades. / Büssgen, Melanie; Büssgen, Marcel A.
in: Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, Jahrgang 16, Nr. 1, 109, 2023.

Publikation: Beitrag in FachzeitschriftArtikelForschungPeer-Review

Büssgen, M & Büssgen, MA 2023, 'Pipeline progress and portfolio management of the top 30 pharma companies over the past two decades', Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, Jg. 16, Nr. 1, 109. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40545-023-00612-6
Büssgen, M., & Büssgen, M. A. (2023). Pipeline progress and portfolio management of the top 30 pharma companies over the past two decades. Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, 16(1), Artikel 109. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40545-023-00612-6
Büssgen M, Büssgen MA. Pipeline progress and portfolio management of the top 30 pharma companies over the past two decades. Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice. 2023;16(1):109. Epub 2023 Sep 28. doi: 10.1186/s40545-023-00612-6
Büssgen, Melanie ; Büssgen, Marcel A. / Pipeline progress and portfolio management of the top 30 pharma companies over the past two decades. in: Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice. 2023 ; Jahrgang 16, Nr. 1.
Download
@article{78a15b7f20354b4f9d7c91d91d9fab97,
title = "Pipeline progress and portfolio management of the top 30 pharma companies over the past two decades",
abstract = "For pharmaceutical companies, it is essential to define their long-term corporate strategy. This especially involves the pipeline progress of pharmaceuticals and portfolio management. The objective of this study was to give a broad overview of study durations of the clinical trials from the top 30 pharmaceutical companies worldwide and to investigate what could possibly impact these study durations (e.g., indication areas, companies themselves, etc.) We worked with the clinicaltrials.gov database to examine the pipeline (phase 1–3) and portfolio (after regulatory approval) of the top 30 pharma companies worldwide over 20 years (from 2000–2020). We further calculated the study duration of each clinical study as the difference between the start date and end date. To analyze changes in our measure we estimated multiple linear regression to evaluate the impact of indication areas and companies on the study duration. Most of the clinical studies were conducted in the areas of ONCIM (N = 2720), and META (N = 1993). The indication with the highest study duration was ONCIM (on average 3.9 years per clinical study, SD: 0.8). Values for the study duration vary widely across companies. Mostly they range between 1 and 4 years (e.g., Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) on average 2.2 years per clinical study, SD: 1.0). Correlation analysis showed that study phases were positively correlated with the study duration (+ 0.36, p < 0.000), i.e., the higher the study phase, the higher the study duration. Furthermore, we found that indication areas influenced the study duration significantly (+ 0.17, p < 0.000). However, there were wide variations in effect sizes across indications. The results suggest that different indication areas influence the study duration to different extents. Pipeline progress and portfolio management differ widely between indications, companies and over the years. Research findings could help corporate strategy managers to make more informed decisions regarding their business development strategy.",
keywords = "Clinical studies, Clinical trials, Pharma market, Pharmaceutical industry, Pipeline, Portfolio management, Strategy",
author = "Melanie B{\"u}ssgen and B{\"u}ssgen, {Marcel A.}",
note = "Funding information: None.",
year = "2023",
doi = "10.1186/s40545-023-00612-6",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
number = "1",

}

Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pipeline progress and portfolio management of the top 30 pharma companies over the past two decades

AU - Büssgen, Melanie

AU - Büssgen, Marcel A.

N1 - Funding information: None.

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - For pharmaceutical companies, it is essential to define their long-term corporate strategy. This especially involves the pipeline progress of pharmaceuticals and portfolio management. The objective of this study was to give a broad overview of study durations of the clinical trials from the top 30 pharmaceutical companies worldwide and to investigate what could possibly impact these study durations (e.g., indication areas, companies themselves, etc.) We worked with the clinicaltrials.gov database to examine the pipeline (phase 1–3) and portfolio (after regulatory approval) of the top 30 pharma companies worldwide over 20 years (from 2000–2020). We further calculated the study duration of each clinical study as the difference between the start date and end date. To analyze changes in our measure we estimated multiple linear regression to evaluate the impact of indication areas and companies on the study duration. Most of the clinical studies were conducted in the areas of ONCIM (N = 2720), and META (N = 1993). The indication with the highest study duration was ONCIM (on average 3.9 years per clinical study, SD: 0.8). Values for the study duration vary widely across companies. Mostly they range between 1 and 4 years (e.g., Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) on average 2.2 years per clinical study, SD: 1.0). Correlation analysis showed that study phases were positively correlated with the study duration (+ 0.36, p < 0.000), i.e., the higher the study phase, the higher the study duration. Furthermore, we found that indication areas influenced the study duration significantly (+ 0.17, p < 0.000). However, there were wide variations in effect sizes across indications. The results suggest that different indication areas influence the study duration to different extents. Pipeline progress and portfolio management differ widely between indications, companies and over the years. Research findings could help corporate strategy managers to make more informed decisions regarding their business development strategy.

AB - For pharmaceutical companies, it is essential to define their long-term corporate strategy. This especially involves the pipeline progress of pharmaceuticals and portfolio management. The objective of this study was to give a broad overview of study durations of the clinical trials from the top 30 pharmaceutical companies worldwide and to investigate what could possibly impact these study durations (e.g., indication areas, companies themselves, etc.) We worked with the clinicaltrials.gov database to examine the pipeline (phase 1–3) and portfolio (after regulatory approval) of the top 30 pharma companies worldwide over 20 years (from 2000–2020). We further calculated the study duration of each clinical study as the difference between the start date and end date. To analyze changes in our measure we estimated multiple linear regression to evaluate the impact of indication areas and companies on the study duration. Most of the clinical studies were conducted in the areas of ONCIM (N = 2720), and META (N = 1993). The indication with the highest study duration was ONCIM (on average 3.9 years per clinical study, SD: 0.8). Values for the study duration vary widely across companies. Mostly they range between 1 and 4 years (e.g., Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) on average 2.2 years per clinical study, SD: 1.0). Correlation analysis showed that study phases were positively correlated with the study duration (+ 0.36, p < 0.000), i.e., the higher the study phase, the higher the study duration. Furthermore, we found that indication areas influenced the study duration significantly (+ 0.17, p < 0.000). However, there were wide variations in effect sizes across indications. The results suggest that different indication areas influence the study duration to different extents. Pipeline progress and portfolio management differ widely between indications, companies and over the years. Research findings could help corporate strategy managers to make more informed decisions regarding their business development strategy.

KW - Clinical studies

KW - Clinical trials

KW - Pharma market

KW - Pharmaceutical industry

KW - Pipeline

KW - Portfolio management

KW - Strategy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85173587171&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s40545-023-00612-6

DO - 10.1186/s40545-023-00612-6

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85173587171

VL - 16

JO - Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice

JF - Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice

IS - 1

M1 - 109

ER -