Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 8 Success rates (%) in development 2009–2014 for MMV compared to benchmark data, by phase

From: New developments in anti-malarial target candidate and product profiles

  MMV CMRa PBFb
Excluding LCMc Including LCM
Per phase Cumu-lative Per phase Cumu-lative Per phase Cumu-lative Per phase Cumu-lative
Preclinical 50 8 50 14 60 5 40 3
Phase I 70 16 70 27 56 9 54 7
Phase IIa 75 23 78 39 36 16 34 13
Phase IIb 60d 30 75 50 60d 45 60d 38
Phase III 50 50 67 67 84 75 70 64
Registration 100 100 100 100 89 89 91 91
  1. aLCM: Life cycle management; these are the medicines that were brought into the MMV portfolio when it was already clear that they are well tolerated and effective, but the task was to generate new formulations or co-formulations
  2. bPharmaceutical Benchmarking Forum; CMR data 2013
  3. cPBF data 2010
  4. dStage success rate of 60% for combining two medicines has been added into reflect the potential for unfavourable drug–drug interactions that prevents further development of a combination. However, as discussed in the text, this may be an underestimate, since it does not include additional risk because of the change in endpoints between parasite reduction in phase IIa (APCR on day 14 or 28) and ACPR day 28 in phase IIb. No additional allowance has been made for the risk that a medicine may fail because it is not possible to produce a pediatric presentation