Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Feature
  • Published:

Vaccine R&D success rates and development times

Nature Biotechnology volume 14, pages 591–593 (1996)Cite this article

The real time saving in vaccine development is not in the preclinical development itself, but in the accelerated clinical development and reduced regulatory process of dossier preparation and review.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Struck, M.-M. 1994. Biopharmaceutical R & D success rates and development times. Bio/Technology 12: 674–677.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Drews, J. 1995. The impact of cost containment on pharmaceutical research and development, in 10th Center for Medicines Research Annual Conference Lecture, June 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mercer Report. 1995. Report on the United States Vaccine Industry, June 14. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.

  4. World Health Organization. 1995. Weekly Epidemiological Record 70: 252–255.

  5. Efstratiou, A. 1995. Diphtheria in Europe: An update. PHLS Microbiol. Digest 12: 233–235.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jenum, P.A., et al. 1995. Immunity to diphtheria in northern Norway and northwestern Russia. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 14: 794–798.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Desselberger, U. 1995. Emerging infectious diseases PHLS Microbiol. Digest 12: 141–144.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bussiere, J.L., McCormick, G.C., and Green, J.D. 1995. Preclinical safety assessment: Considerations in vaccine development, pp. 61–79 in Vaccine Design: The subunit and adjuvant approach, Powell, M.R and Newman, M.J. (Eds.). Plenum Press, New York.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Fast, P.E., Sawyer, L.A., and Wescott, S.L. 1995. Clinical considerations in vaccine trials with special reference to candidate HIV vaccines, pp. 97–134 in Vaccine design: The subunit and adjuvant approach, Powell, M.F and Newman, M.J. (Eds.). Plenum Press, New York.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Orenstein, W.A. et al. 1984. Field evaluation of vaccine efficacy, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Davenport, L.W. 1995. Regulatory considerations in vaccine design, p. 81–96 in Vaccine Design: The subunit and adjuvant approach, Powell, M.F and Newman, M.J. (Eds.). Plenum Press, New York.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Parkman, P.D. and Hardegree, M.C. 1994. Regulation and testing of vaccines, p. 889–901 in Vaccines, Plotkin, S.A. and Mortimer, E.A. (Eds.). W.B. Saunders Company.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Food and Drug Administration. 1995. Points to consider for the evaluation of combination vaccines, Office of Vaccines Research and Review, Center for Biologies Evaluation and Research (CBER), PDA, Rockville, MD.

  14. European Vaccine Manufacturers Association. 1995. Pharmaceutical aspects of combined vaccines: EVM view to be considered as a basis for discussion with authorities, EPPIA, Avenue Louise 250, Brussels.

  15. Pharmaceutical Projects, I. Hutton (Ed.). PJB Publications, London.

  16. Glück, R. et al. 1992. Immuno-potentiating reconstituted influenza virus virosome vaccine delivery system for immunization against hepatitis A. J. Clin. Invest. 90: 2491–2495.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Levine, M.M. et al. 1988. Safety, immunogenlcity, and efficacy of recombinant live oral cholera vaccines, CVD 103 and CVD 103-HgR. Lancet 2: 467–470.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Levine, M.M. et al. 1990. Comparison of enteric-coated capsules and liquid formulation of Ty21a typhoid vaccine in randomised controlled field trial. Lancet 336: 891–894.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Miller, E. et al. 1993. Risk of aseptic meningitis after measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine in UK children. Lancet 341: 979–982.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Parker, D.P. 1995. Laboratory empiricism, clinical design, and social value, pp. 135–139 in Vaccine design: The subunit and adjuvant approach, Powell, M.F. and Newman, M.J. (Eds.). Plenum Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tacket, C.O. et al. 1993. Safety and immunogenicity of live oral cholera candidate CVD110, a DctxA Dzot Dace derivative of EITor Ogawa V. cholerae. J. Infect. Dis. 168: 1536–1540.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pharmaceutical R&D Statistical Sourcebook. 1995. Mathieu M.P. Parexel International Corporation.

  23. Gupta, R.K. and Siber, G.R. 1995. Reappraisal of existing methods for potency testing of vaccines against tetanus and diphtheria. Vaccine 13: 965–966.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. head of registration and regulatory affairs at Swiss Serum and Vaccine, Inc., Rehhagstrasse 79, CH-3018, Bern, Switzerland

    Mark-M. Struck

Authors
  1. Mark-M. Struck
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Struck, MM. Vaccine R&D success rates and development times. Nat Biotechnol 14, 591–593 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0596-591

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0596-591

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing