Phase III and submission failures: 2007–2010 (original) (raw)
- News and Analysis
- Published: 01 February 2011
Trial watch
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery volume 10, page 87 (2011) Cite this article
- 10k Accesses
- 424 Citations
- 47 Altmetric
- Metrics details
Subjects
The Centre for Medicines Research International has noted that the average for the combined success rate at Phase III and submission has fallen to ∼50% in recent years. To learn more about the causes for Phase III and submission failures, Thomson Reuters Life Science Consulting analysed the reasons for these failures between 2007 and 2010. This analysis included failures across all therapeutic areas, initial indications and major new indications. Re-formulations and new claims closely related to already approved indications were excluded from the analysis.
One conclusion from this analysis is that large numbers of failures are occurring with drugs that have novel mechanisms of action in areas of high unmet medical need: cancer and neurodegeneration, in particular. This could primarily be due to the challenging science in these areas, but is perhaps also a result of the pressure on companies to replenish pipelines with drugs that have high potential for approval and reimbursement, particularly in a period during which patent expiries for major products are threatening future revenues. Owing to this urgency, it seems that companies have progressed drugs into Phase III trials even though they only displayed marginal statistically significant efficacy in Phase II proof-of-concept studies; consequently, these drugs carry a greater than average risk of failure. There also seems to be a propensity to assume that success in one disease will translate into success in a new and significantly different disease. This is particularly apparent in oncology, for which it seems that success in one tumour type has been assumed to translate into success in a variety of other tumour types, without firm evidence that the mechanism of action remains relevant. This can be illustrated by the failures of sunitinib (Sutent; Pfizer) in hepatic cancer and of bevacizumab (Avastin; Genentech/Roche) in gastric cancer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
- John Arrowsmith is a Scientific Director at Thomson Reuters, 77 Hatton Garden, London EC1N 8JS, UK. e-mail: john.arrowsmith@thomsonreuters.com,
John Arrowsmith
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Arrowsmith, J. Phase III and submission failures: 2007–2010.Nat Rev Drug Discov 10, 87 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3375
- Published: 01 February 2011
- Issue date: February 2011
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3375