Protein Therapeutic Candidates : Monoclonal Antibodies ( Mabs )

This paper hopes to share insight into the steps that are taken by companies, and the strenuous process behind developing an effective new drug.

There are multiple health concerns worldwide and more and more drugs are needed every day. Many drugs however, are extremely expensive to develop, test, and produce. According to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (2002), it costs up to $802 million to bring a new drug to the market. In 2002, pharmaceutical companies spent $34 billion in research and development (Center-Watch, 2003). In addition to the costs, the overall time from the discovery to approve and market the drug can take up to 15 years.

Comparing these potential market size, we can easily observe that Oxyglobin is roughly two times as profitable as Hemopure. Accordingly, Biopure should take these data into account to evaluate whether or not to launch Oxyglobin immediately. On the other hand, this revenue expectation is not so realistic. In fact, it is almost impossible that the company will capture the whole potential markets because of its small production capacity. This latter represents the main obstacle to a potential success of Biopure in both animal and human

Improvements in health care and life sciences are an important source of gains in health and longevity globally. The development of innovative pharmaceutical products plays a critical role in ensuring these continued gains. To encourage the continued development of new drugs, economic incentives are essential. These incentives are principally provided through direct and indirect government funding, intellectual property laws, and other policies that favor innovation. Without such incentives, private corporations, which bring to market the vast majority of new drugs, would be less able to assume the risks and costs necessary to continue their research and development (R&D). In the United States, government action has focused on creating the environment that would best encourage further innovation and yield a constant flow of new and innovative medicines to the market. The goal has been to ensure that consumers would benefit both from technological breakthroughs and the competition that further innovation generates. The United States also relies on a strong generic pharmaceutical industry to create added competitive pressure to lower drug prices. Recent action by the Administration and Congress has accelerated the flow of generic medicines to the market for precisely that reason. By contrast, in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

These new guidelines will allow for a 12-year period of data exclusivity for new branded biologics. During the 12- year period, rivals are not allowed to use any prior data to try to come up with their own product. Before, the passage of the ACA, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), could not legally approve new biologic medicines because they had to have clinical trials. This law opened up the regulatory guidelines for the FDA to approve

Some of traditional drugs may be effective in patients whose cancers have a specific molecular target, and not for other patients. To solve this problem of patient-specificity, pharmaceutical research have seen the expansion of individually tailored cancer treatment, which is an application of targeted therapy, and this is where biopharmaceuticals are. As an increasing part of the population is diagnosed with cancer and as these patients live longer, increasing care will be given to patients who have received these drugs. Moreover, in the case of cancer therapy, those drugs and especially with mABs are a promise of less side effects : recombinant DNA technology makes it possible to genetically engineer an antibody to reduce the risk of host immune response.

Before any biopharmaceutical company can begin to manufacture a desired product, the company is required by law to establish an adequate facility to support a safe and efficient manufacturing process. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) department under the authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act determines whether or not a specific manufacturing facility is approved. Furthermore, companies must adhere to the Good Manufacturing Practice Regulations (GMP) specifically those described in ICH Q7 in order to effectively fulfill FDA requirements. The fundamental purpose of the regulations beforehand is to accomplish a system that ensures products are consistently produced and controlled to the highest standards and thus prevent human safety risks that may not be reduced through testing the final

While the steps to bring a new drug to market may seem extensive and costly, they are a necessity. Clinical drug trials provide options for people with diseases while also allowing doctors to improve the way they diagnose and treat these diseases. The process is long, but the benefits that new drugs have to offer, is

Recently, there has been a debate about the high prescription drug prices in the United States. Accounting for 9.7% of the national health expenditure, $329.2 billion was spent on prescription medications ($931 per person) in 2011 (Linton, 2014). So what exactly is the average American getting with their $931? Well, because there is an extraordinary amount of time, effort, and energy that goes into creating, manufacturing, and distributing a new drug, it’s no wonder the prices are so high. But what other costs are folded into the prices of your prescribed medications? This review looks beyond just the research and development costs needed to take a new drug from idea to shelf by examining several journals and other credible, secondary sources, to shed some light on how much pharmaceutical companies are spending to develop, advertise, and sell their drugs.

Nucleon is a small biotechnology start-up company focused on developing biotechnological pharmaceutical products based on a class of proteins known as cell regulating factors. The company has been in the market for five years, and currently, they are in the process of human trials for their first potential product, “cell regulating protein-1” (CRP-1). Overcoming these phases, Nucleon has to decide among several alternatives on producing CRP-1. Knowing that the process involved a tremendous amount of time and money, Nucleon has to choose the right decision for their long-term survival in the intensively competitive and high-stakes drug industry.

Even though the capital requirements are less demanding in generic pharmaceuticals, it is still a very expensive venture and extremely competitive, making it hard to penetrate as well. The biosimilar industry is undeveloped and competition is scarce, but it takes a lot of money and expertise to produce products that are as complex as these pharmaceuticals.

Nucleon is a small biotechnology start-up with a very promising potential product (CRP-1), which is also the first product that Nucleon is planning to go into the clinic market. Nucleon has reached to human clinical trials phase with its product and it has no manufacturing facilities that satisfy the guidelines for these clinical trials and testing. Nucleon is on the verge of making a critical choice of manufacturing strategy, which will affect Nucleon’s survival in the intense competition in the long haul. Nucleon management is aware of the facts that they have a limited budget to start with, the financial environment in biotechnology is rapidly changing and establishing the safety and efficacy of products like CRP-1 is

Abmart Inc. was started in 2007 by experienced life science entrepreneurs returned from overseas. With 220 employees, Abmart is one of the largest and fastest growing biotechnology companies in China with a 30,000 square feet facility consisting of production and animal facilities in Shanghai. Abmart’s goal is to enable every protein to have a standard set of monoclonal antibodies optimal for all possible applications. With SEAL™ technology, developed in 2011 and a scalable monoclonal antibody development process, Abmart will deliver even lower cost and faster discovery time for monoclonal antibodies to more than 1000 customers worldwide.

Achieve a median composite eight-year product development cycle by 2010. Deliver two new molecular entity (NME) launches on average per year from 2010. In order to achieve the above objective, ensure that we have 10 or more NMEs in Phase III development by 2010. Development cycle times and quality for small molecules and biologics. Number of NME launches per year. Attrition rates. Number of development projects by phase. Number of in-licensing deals, alliances and acquisitions. R&D investment levels. Improving R&D quality and speed through leading-edge science, effective risk management and decision-making and overall business efficiency. Maximising the value of our biologics business and continuing to build a major presence in this fast-growing sector. Investing in external opportunities to enhance our internal innovation through in-licensing, alliances and acquisitions. 2008 target exceeded for small molecule development cycle times. NME and life-cycle management progressions

Unlike Gilead that has only one product in its Oncology line, Bristol-Myers Squibb presently have four different drugs namely: Erbitux –an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antagonist for the treatment of Head & Neck cancer and Colorectal cancer,(2) Opdivo (nivolumab) for the treatment of unresectable or metastic melanoma and lungs cancer, (3) Syrcel( dasatinb) for the treatment of newly diagnosed adult with Philadelphia chromosome –positive (ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia and (4) Yervoy (ipilimumob) for the treatment of melanoma a type of skin cancer that spread and as such cannot be remove by surgery. Like Seattle Genetics, the company products use either Antibody-drug Conjugate (ADC) though in a different version by linking potent cytotoxic to monoclonal antibodies targeted to specific tumor cells or immune-oncology, an innovative technology that unlocks the body own immune system to fight against cancerous cells. It also expanded its focus to Nolch inhibitor (used in blocking powerful pathway that promotes tumor cell survival for certain other types of cancer. (Bristol-Myer Squibb, 2014) Because the technology is similar but used differently, BMS would be considered a close competitor who currently has the advantage of having four targeted specific drugs and 12 other oncology and immune-oncology in various trial phases.