Measurement of biological drug innovation in modern times

Inflation reduction method grants authority Medicare Partial negotiations with clinical interests FDA The accelerated approval is closely investigated and the fundamental questions are becoming more and more important. What exactly organizes “innovation” in biopharmaceuticals?

To date, our answers have focused on calculations such as R & D investment, drug approval and patents. However, these metrics can prefer quantity over quality Distinguish Between deformation and incremental power generation. I depend on them alone danger Incorrect resources, weaken the results of the patient, overlooked health care sustainability, and overlooked high value -added therapy.

Complementary innovation measurements aim to capture traditional indicators such as clinical effects, social benefits and fair approaches. Some emphasize Wider value-The other people, including scientific leakage, greater access and long -term public health interests, gap Between discovery and available therapy.

Nevertheless, there is no unified and extensive application that integrates the entire spectrum of biopharmaceutical innovation, from traditional volume -based indicators to value -oriented measurements such as therapeutic effects, actual impacts and policy relevance.

To solve this difference, we systematically reviewed the interdisciplinary literature on innovation indicators and identified a comprehensive set that captured clinical, economic and social values. As a result, Lu Brick is designed to provide strategic and practical guidelines for those who are developing, evaluating, evaluating, funding, and benefits.

Multi -dimensional Innovation Lu Brick

Our systematic literature review confirmed innovation indicators in 2,350 articles across medical, public health, economy, strategy, finance and operation, and 617 was related to biopharmaceuticals. From them, we have built a six -dimensional Lu Brick and comprehensively evaluated biopharmaceutical innovation from initial discovery to actual implementation.

• Science and technology development: Using metrics such as NMES, IND applications, and patents to capture innovation and productivity. New indicators, such as AI Support R & D and Digital Bio Marker, provide future -oriented insights.
• Clinical results: Emphasize the treatment of the actual patients and the delay in the disease progression by emphasizing the therapeutic effects through indicators such as safety, efficacy and patient reporting results.
• Operating efficiency: Development and production efficiency is measured using test success rate, R & D timeline, supply chain elasticity and adaptive test design.
• Economic and social influence: Economic profits and social benefits are evaluated by analyzing cost efficiency, budget impact and productivity improvement.
• Policy and regulatory efficiency: Regulatory framework assesses how to support innovation through approval speed, groundbreaking designation and surrogate endpoint integration.
• Public health and accessibility: Investigate wider health effects, including reducing the incidence of disease, improving medical access, and equally geographical distribution, so that innovation can meet extensive public health requirements.

Stakeholder Perspective: Make Lu Bricks executable

Our Lu Brick, in particular, deals with five important stakeholders of the bio pharmaceutical ecosystem, a pharmaceutical company, an investor, a payer (including insurers and medical services), and a patient and policy makers. Each group requires customized indicators that are tailored to strategic goals and operations as the formation and benefits of innovation.

Figure 1 Adopt innovative metrics by stakeholders group.

reference : This picture shows the current practices and opportunities of the six -dimensional bio pharmaceutical innovation indicators. The solid circle (CL) represents the usually used metrics, and the open circle (◯) emphasizes the current useless metrics.

Figure 1 shows how stakeholders are currently measuring innovation and where the gaps that can be filled by emerging metrics are. Today, they rely heavily on traditional indicators such as NME, patents and financial indicators, which have been established simply, easily, and historically. However, they have delayed adopting new indicators that provide subtle insights to long -term social benefits and health care as a result of patient -centered. The indicators identified by “potential” have been consistent in the recent discussions of literature and stakeholders, reflecting increasing perceptions and practicality. The main results are:

• Pharmaceutical company It uses science and operating indicators such as NME, patents and R & D efficiency to guide investments and manage portfolios. As a result of the reported result, the focus can improve market prediction and strategic choice. For example, a biotechnology company that develops the MRNA platform may appear to be undervalued by the number of NME, but recognizes the flexibility of the platform and the future potential.
• investor In general, we evaluate innovation through financial indicators (expected profit, profitability) and technology indicators (patents, platforms). Integrating social productivity, regulatory compliance and geographical scope, can better match and invest in long -term influences and reduce risks. This can lead to dangerous investments in potential Alzheimer’s therapy when reducing long -term productivity gains and caring burden.
• Payment It focuses on clinical effects and economic values (cost efficiency, price adjustment) of repayment decisions. Additional coverage can be further supported, including metrics such as compliance, medical use and operational stability. The proposed Lu Brick will formalize the analysis already applied to one -time gene therapy, and despite the high prepaid cost, it can show long -term value when there is little to save lifetime, improve compliance and hospitalization.
• patient Prioritize clinical results (safety, efficacy, quality of life) and access. Actual evidence, geographical availability and timely market access help to advocate improvement. For example, biological on self -immune conditions can extend the lifespan slightly, but greatly improves daily function. Patient reporting results and compliance data capture VAT.
• Policymaker Use public health and economic results to guide the resource allocation. Indicators such as supply chain elasticity and regulatory response are improved. Integrating these measurement items into innovative frameworks will capture the strategic and public health value of antimicrobial agents that are officially commercially and not practical.

Adopting a multidimensional framework introduces trade -offs, including complexity, resource competition and potential conflict between metrics. Stakeholders must set priorities at dimensions that meet strategic goals and regulatory situations. For example, payments can emphasize clinical and cost efficiency, while pharmaceutical companies can prioritize operational efficiency and scientific productivity.

Bio Pharmaceutical Innovation Finance

The next step includes the integration of stakeholders to sort metrics at each dimension and to improve usefulness at each level, and to integrate stakeholders to improve usefulness. The goal is not to replace the existing evaluation system, but to improve it into a multidimensional structure based on the cross -sector evidence.

Lu Brick expands how to define innovation that defines a wide range of social influences, with clinical effects, patient -centered results, and traditional volume -based indicators. If policymakers and payers adopt these complementary metrics in their evaluation and repayment framework, they can better fit the innovative innovation of high value with high investment and R & D incentives. Emphasizing long -term health results, real effects and extensive economic values will make innovation more closer to patients’ needs and social priorities. This change will help to ensure that innovative treatments are recognized for both scientific and real effects.