The Contribution of the United States, Europe and Japan in Discovering New Drugs: 1982–2003

  • Henry Grabowski
Part of the Economía de la Salud y Gestión Sanitaria book series (SESGS)


In an article published in Health Affairs in 2006, Grabowski and Wang (G&W) examined trends in the introduction of new chemical entities (NCEs) worldwide from 1982 to 20031. Although there is a well documented decline over time in total worldwide introductions, we found various quality indicators such as the number of global, first-in-class, biotech and orphan drugs exhibited more positive trends. U.S. headquartered firms also assumed a strong leadership position in terms of being the initial introducers of the most novel compounds including first-in-class, biotech and orphan drugs.


Orphan Drug Health Affair Exchange Rate Fluctuation Proportionality Ratio Drug Introduction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    H. Grabowski and Y.R. Wang, “The Quantity and Quality of Worldwide New Drug Introductions, 1982–2003”, Health Affairs 25(2), (2006): 452–460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Danzon, S. Nicholson, and N.S. Periera, “Productivity in pharmaceutical-biotechnology R&D: The role of experience and alliances”, Journal of Health Economics 24 No. 2 (2005): 317–339; A. Arora, A. Fosfuri and A. Gambardella, Markets for Technology: The economics of innovation and corporate strategy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D.W. Light, “Global Drug Discovery: Europe is Ahead”, Health Affairs 28(5) (2009): W969–977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Academy of Engineering, The Competitive Status of the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Grabowski, “An Analysis of U.S. International Competitiveness in Pharmaceuticals”, Managerial and Decision Economics 10(1), 1989: 27–33; L.G. Thomas, “Implicit Industrial Policy: The Triumph of Britain and the Failure of France in Global Pharmaceuticals”, Industrial and Corporate Change 3(2), 1984:451-489; L. G. Thomas, III, The Japanese Pharmaceutical Industry, Cheltenham, U.K.: Edgar Elgar, 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Light, “Global Drug Discovery”, op. cit.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    In particular, 57% of the first-in-class drugs were ranked as important advances. This compares to 40% of all NCEs being ranked as important therapeutic advances. H. Grabowski and Y. Richard Wang, “The Quantity and Quality of Worldwide New Drug Introductions 1992–2003”, Health Affairs, vol. 25 no. 2 (2006), p. 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    E.R. Berndt, I.M. Cockburn and K.A. Grenpin, “The Impact of Incremental Innovation in Biopharmaceuticals”, PharmcoEconomics 22 Supp. 4 (2006): 69–86.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Research by DiMasi and colleagues indicates that the time between the first entrant in a new class and the second-in-class products, has steadily declined over time, so that new treatment approaches typically involve a rapid introduction of alternative therapies within a class. J.A. DiMasi and C. Paquette, “The Economics of Follow-on Drug Research and Development: Trends in Entry Rates and Timing of Development”, PharmcoEconomics 22 Supp. 2 (2004): 1–14. J.A. DiMasi and L.B. Faden, “Follow-on Drug R&D: New Data on Trends in Entry Rates and the Timing of Development”, Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development, unpublished manuscript, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Since the 1990s, the U.S. death rates from AIDS dropped about 70% after the advent of new treatment regimes. See, for example, Cascade Collection “Determinants of Survival Following HIV-1 seroconversion after Introduction of HAART”, The Lancet vol. 362, (2003); pp. 1267–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    In particular, we started with the ATC codes for all these drugs available outside the United States to see whether these drugs received a new class code. This is available on the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (, and we also used complementary internet data sources and the USC codes for any of these drugs that became available in the United States after 2003.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    This product was telithromycin (Ketek), a member of the ketolide class which was first introduced worldwide in October 2001 and subsequently in the United States in April 2004.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bevacizumab (Avastin) was first approved in February 2004 just after the December 2003 sample period of our analysis. For a description of the lengthy development process of bevacizumab, which was first isolated in 1989 by scientists at Genentech, see H. Grabowski, “Follow-on biologics: data exclusivity and the balance between innovation and competition”, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, vol. 7 no. 6 (June, 2008), pp. 479–488.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 16.
    H. Grabowski and Y. Richard Wang, “The Quantity and Quality of Worldwide New Drug Introductions 1992–2003”, Health Affairs, vol. 25 no. 2 (2006), p. 455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 20.
    For discussion of the differences in orphan drug laws for the United States, Japan and Europe, see H. Kettler, “Narrowing the Gap between Provision and Need for Medicines in Developing Countries” (London: Office of Health Economics, 2000) 40–43.Google Scholar
  16. 22.
    R. Landau, B. Achiladelis and A. Scriabine, Pharmaceutical Innovation: Revolutionizing human health (Philadelphia, PA: Chemical Heritage Foundation, 1999) p. 352–356; Dr. Gertrude Elion and George Hitchings, who worked in the Research Triangle Park labs of Burroughs Wellcome in North Carolina, shared the 1988 Nobel Prize for Medicine with Sir James Black for “important principles of drug development”. According to the Nobel Committee, their research was instrumental in creating several important new drugs, including anti-viral drugs for herpes and AIDS. Burroughs and Wellcome, in conjunction with the NIH, developed the first drug for AIDS, Zidovudine (AZT). This drug was first synthesized as an anti-cancer drug n the 1060s by scientists at Wayne State University, but proved ineffective in this use. Based on the discovery of AZT as an AIDS treatment, scientists in the anti-viral group at Burroughs Wellcome were awarded a method of U.S. patent in 1985 by the U.S. Patent Office. Judy Forman, “3 Share Nobel Price for Medicine”, Boston Globe, Tuesday, October 18, 2008, p. 1; H. Grabowski, “Are the Economics of Pharmaceutical R&D Changing? Productivity, Patents and Political Pressures”, PharmacoEconomics 22, suppl. 2 (2004); 15-24.Google Scholar
  17. 23.
    A. Gambardella, L. Orsenigo and F. Pammoli. “Global Competitiveness in Pharmaceuticals: A European Perspective”, (Luxembourg: Officer for Official Publication of the European Communities, 2001) pg. 31, 51. For 1988-1997, the United States was the country of discovery for 44.9% of European pharmaceutical patents and 46.8% of the biotech patents versus 39.8% and 34.2% respectively emanating from European countries (Table 16, p. 38).Google Scholar
  18. 24.
    Light, “Global Drug Discovery”, op. cit.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 25.
    J. DiMasi, R. Hansen and H. Grabowski, “The Price of Innovation: New Estimates of Drug Development Costs”, Journal of Health Economics 22(2) (2003): 151–185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 32.
    H. Grabowski and Y. Richard Wang, “The Quantity and Quality of Worldwide New Drug Introductions 1992–2003”, Health Affairs, vol. 25 no. 2 (2006), pp. 458–459; F. M. Scherer, New Prospectives on Economic Growth and Technological Innovation (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 33.
    P. Danzon and L. Chao, “Does Regulation Drive Out Competition in the Pharmaceutical Market?” Journal of Law and Economics, 49 No. 2 (2000): 311–357; P. Danzon, Pharmaceutical Price Regulation: National Policies Versus Global Interests (Washington: AEI 1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 34.
    L.G. Thomas, The Japanese Pharmaceutical Industry (Chetenham, England: Edgar Elgar, 2001); L.G. Thomas, “Implicit Industrial Policy: The Triumph of Britain and the Failure of France in Global Pharmaceuticals”, Industrial and Corporate Change 3, No. 2. (1994): 451-489.Google Scholar
  23. 35.
    F.M. Scherer, “The Link Between Gross Profitability and Pharmaceutical R&D Spending”, Health Affairs, 20, No. 5 (2001): 216–220; C. Giaccotto, R.E. Santerre and J.A. Vernon, “Drug Prices and R&D Investment Behavior in the Pharmaceutical Industry”, Journal of Law and Economics 48 No. 1 (2005); 194-214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 36.
    F.M. Scherer, “U.S. Industrial Policy” in Adrian Towse, editor, Industrial Policy and the Pharmaceutical Industry, (London: Office of Health Economics, 1995).Google Scholar
  25. 37.
    H. Grabowski. “Are the Economics of Pharmaceutical R&D Changing? Productivity, Patents and Political Pressures”, PharmcoEconomics 22, suppl. 2 (2004): 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Healthcare Ibérica SL. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry Grabowski

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations