{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015754560530679935, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0008291873963515755, 'mean_word_length': 6.1, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of Stakeholder Metrics for Traditional and Adaptive Development and Licensing Approaches to Drug Development

This study evaluates whether an adaptive development and licensing approach to drug development, compared with approaches widely used today, might have tangible advantages across stakeholder groups, thereby facilitating the future adoption. Details involving actual and modeled clinical development and licensing programs for 3 case studies were used as inputs into a discounted cash flow spreadsheet model. Outputs included net present value and expected net present value, which are metrics considered as key incentives for pharmaceutical developers, and change in patient access over the product life and numbers of appropriately and inappropriately treated patients, which are metrics considered as key incentives for regulators, patients, and prescribers. Actual and modeled development programs were compared using an “adaptiveness” scoring algorithm. Generally, the more adaptive programs correlated with more favorable stakeholder outcomes. However, favorable outcomes may be overwhelmed in some cases, and the causative conditions and stakeholder reactions need to be defined.