Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 31, 2025
Biosensor-based High Throughput Biopanning and Bioinformatics Analysis Strategy for the Global Validation of Drug-protein Interactions
Published on: December 1, 2020
A Quantitative Framework to Identify and Prioritize Opportunities in Biomedical Product Innovation: A
Laura Elisabeth Gressler1,2, Kenyon Crowley3,4, Elise Berliner5
1Center for Devices and Radiological Health, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Importance:
Prioritization and funding for health initiatives, including biomedical innovation, may not consistently target unmet public health needs.
Objective:
To (1) develop a quantitative, databased framework to identify and prioritize opportunities for biomedical product innovation investments based on a multicriteria decision-making model (MCDM) that includes comprehensive measures of public health burden and health care costs, and (2) pilot test the model.
Design, Setting, And Participants:
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) convened public and private experts to develop a model, select measures, and complete a longitudinal pilot study to identify and prioritize opportunities for investment in biomedical product innovations that have the greatest public health benefit. Cross-sectional and longitudinal data (2012-2019) for 13 pilot medical disorders were obtained from the Institute for Health Metrics Global Burden of Disease database (IHME GBD) and the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).
Main Outcome Measures:
The main outcome measure was an overall gap score reflecting high public health burden (composite measure of mortality, prevalence, years lived with disability, and health disparities), or high health care costs (composite measure of total, public, and out-of-pocket health spending) relative to low biomedical innovation. Sixteen innovation metrics were selected to reflect the pipeline of biomedical products from research and development to market approval. A higher score indicates a greater gap. Normalized composite scores were calculated for public health burden, cost, and innovation investment using the MCDM Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution method.
Results:
Among the 13 conditions tested in the pilot study, diabetes (0.61), osteoarthritis (0.46), and drug-use disorders (0.39) had the highest overall gap score reflecting high public health burden, or high health care costs relative to low biomedical innovation in these medical disorders. Chronic kidney disease (0.05), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (0.09), and cirrhosis and other liver diseases (0.10) had the least amount of biomedical product innovation despite similar public health burden and health care cost scores.
Conclusions:
In this cross-sectional pilot study, we developed and implemented a data-driven, proof-of-concept model that can help identify, quantify, and prioritize opportunities for biomedical product innovation. Quantifying the relative alignment between biomedical product innovation, public health burden, and health care cost may help identify and prioritize investments that can have the greatest public health benefit.
Related Concept Videos
01:26Drug Discovery: Overview
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:28Preclinical Development: Overview
01:11Clinical Trials: Overview
01:28Structure-Activity Relationships and Drug Design
SAR studies the intricate relationship between a drug's chemical structure and biological activity. It focuses on understanding how modifications to a drug's structure can influence...
01:29Issues And Trends In Healthcare Delivery System
Cost Containment
Payment for healthcare services has historically promoted adoption of costly and often unnecessary or inefficient...