Skip to main content

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