The Various Shapes of Innovation

Open access

Abstract

Background: Innovation is one of the most difficult words to define, especially when it comes to health technology. The aim of this article is to get a better understanding of the multi-dimensional facet of innovation, how this is valued by different stakeholders and the way forward in order to create innovative interventions for the sake of the patients and the society.

Methods: A literature search was performed using mainly the PubMed database and reports from various organisations (EFPIA, etc.).

Results: In the past, innovation in the pharmaceutical industry was the result of the findings of basic science translated into clinical compounds, ending up in marketed drugs. This model is not valid anymore since significant changes reshaped the drivers of innovations and the key players. Rising costs, increased competition, new scientific and technological developments, well-informed patients created a much more challenging environment where coordinated and committed collaboration seemed to be the only way to overcome these obstacles and reach innovation in order to discover, develop and deliver medicines to patients.

Conclusions: Innovation initiatives have already proved their value by providing solutions to the major challenges the industry faces. It is now clear that a healthy biomedical ecosystem is determined by all stakeholders-academia, nonprofit/for-profit research institutions, government agencies, pharma/biotech industry and patients. Innovation initiatives provide the platform needed in which all stakeholders can meet and share their knowledge in order to deliver through innovation improved outcomes for patients while shaping an efficient and sustainable healthcare system.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Vincent K. Omachonu NGE. Innovation in Healthcare Delivery Systems: A Conceptual Framework. The Public Sector Innovation Journal. 2010; 15(1):1-20.

  • [2] Lansisalmi H M. Kivimaki P. Aalto and R. Ruoranen. Innovation in Healthcare: A Systematic Review of Recent Research. Nursing Science Quarterly. 2006; 19:66-72.

  • [3] Hult KJ. Incremental Innovation and Pharmaceutical Productivity. 2014.

  • [4] Varkey P Horne A Bennet KE. Innovation in health care: a primer. American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality. 2008; 23(5):382-8.

  • [5] Ruud E.H.M S Wouter P.C. Boon. The role of users in innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Drug Discovery Today. 2008; 13(7/8):353-9.

  • [6] Kaitin KI. The Landscape for Pharmaceutical Innovation: Drivers of Cost-Effective Clinical Research. Pharmaceutical outsourcing. 2010; 2010.

  • [7] Schulthess D Chlebus M Bergstrm R et al. Medicine adaptive pathways to patients (MAPPs): using regulatory innovation to defeat Eroom’s law. Chinese clinical oncology. 2014; 3(2):21.

  • [8] Collyar D. CR. A rennaissance in biomedical innovation: global villages raise effective therapies. Future Medicinal Chemistry. 2015; 7:971-9+74.

  • [9] Montgomery JLaCM. The Pharmaceutical Commons: Sharing and Exclusion in Global Health Drug Development. Science Technology & Human Values. 20104; 40(1):3-29.

  • [10] Reddy R. The Future of Pharma: A U.S. Sector Review. Cognizant Reports. 2011.

  • [11] M G. The Innovative Medicines Initiative: A European Response to the Innovation Challenge. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2012; 91(3):418-25.

  • [12] The right prevention and treeatment for the right patient at the right time: Strategic Research Agenda for Innovative Medicines Initiative 2. EFPIA. Spring 2014.

  • [13] Golubnitschaja O Kinkorova J Costigliola V. Predictive Preventive and Personalised Medicine as the hardcore of ‘Horizon 2020’: EPMA position paper. The EPMA journal. 2014; 5(1):6.

  • [14] Piccart-Gebhart MJ PM Leyland-Jones Bet al. The Case for Personalized Medicine. Personalised Medicine Coalition 2009.

  • [15] Y. Touchefeu KJH J. P. Galmiche & G. Vassaux. Review article: gene therapy recent developments and future prospects in gastrointestinal oncology. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2010; 32:953-68.

  • [16] Misra S. Human gene therapy: a brief overview of the genetic revolution. The Journal of the Association of Physicians of India. 2013; 61(2):127-33.

  • [17] Patil P.M. CPD Megha Sahu Duragkar N.J. REVIEW ARTICLE ON GENE THERAPY. International Journal of Genetics. 2012; 4(1):74-9.

  • [18] Stevens W Philipson TJ Khan ZM et al. Cancer mortality reductions were greatest among countries where cancer care spending rose the most 1995-2007. Health affairs. 2015; 34(4):562-70.

  • [19] Lichtenberg FR. Pharmaceutical Innovation and Longevity Growth in 30 developing high-income countries 2000-2009. NBER Working Paper Series. 2013.

  • [20] America PRaMo. 2012 Pharmaceutical Industry Profile. 2012.

  • [21] Twelves C Gollins S Grieve R et al. A randomised cross-over trial comparing patient preference for oral capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin regimens in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology / ESMO. 2006; 17(2):239-45.

  • [22] Edward L. Korn Boris Freidlin Jeffrey S. Abrams and Susan Halabi. Design Issues in Randomized Phase II/III Trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology. Vol 30 No 6 Feb 20 2012.

  • [23] Peter K. Kimani Susan Toddb and Nigel Stallarda. Conditionally unbiased estimation inphase II/III clinical trials with early stopping for futility. Statistics in Medicine. 2013 32 2893–2910

  • [24] Freidlin B McShane LM Korn EL. Randomized clinical trials with biomarkers: design issues. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2010; 102(3):152–160. [PubMed: 20075367]

  • [25] Ryan D. Gentzler Sarah E. Yentz Melissa L. Johnson Alfred W. Rademaker and Jyoti D. Patel. The Changing Landscape of Phase II/III Metastatic NSCLC Clinical Trials and the Importance of Biomarker Selection Criteria. Cancer 2014;120:3853-8.

  • [26] Henrik Zetterberg* Niklas Mattsson Kaj Blennow and Bob Olsson. Use of theragnostic markers to select drugs for phase II/III trials for Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy 2010 2:32.

  • [27] Shein-Chung Chow and Ralph Corey. Benefits challenges and obstacles of adaptive clinical trial designs. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases 2011 6:79.

  • [28] Daniel Schneider Giampaolo Bianchini Denis Horgan Stefan Michiels Wim Witjes Robert Hills Juliette Plun-Favreau Angela Brand Mark Lawler. Public Health Genomics 2015;18:349–358.

  • [29] Ada Hang-Heng Wong Chu-Xia Deng. Precision Medicine for Personalized Cancer Therapy. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2015 Vol. 11.

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 333 177 4
PDF Downloads 142 81 1