What's Your Question?

What Is a Case Study?

When you’re performing research as part of your job or for a school assignment, you’ll probably come across case studies that help you to learn more about the topic at hand. But what is a case study and why are they helpful? Read on to learn all about case studies.

Deep Dive into a Topic

At face value, a case study is a deep dive into a topic. Case studies can be found in many fields, particularly across the social sciences and medicine. When you conduct a case study, you create a body of research based on an inquiry and related data from analysis of a group, individual or controlled research environment.

As a researcher, you can benefit from the analysis of case studies similar to inquiries you’re currently studying. Researchers often rely on case studies to answer questions that basic information and standard diagnostics cannot address.

Study a Pattern

One of the main objectives of a case study is to find a pattern that answers whatever the initial inquiry seeks to find. This might be a question about why college students are prone to certain eating habits or what mental health problems afflict house fire survivors. The researcher then collects data, either through observation or data research, and starts connecting the dots to find underlying behaviors or impacts of the sample group’s behavior.

Gather Evidence

During the study period, the researcher gathers evidence to back the observed patterns and future claims that’ll be derived from the data. Since case studies are usually presented in the professional environment, it’s not enough to simply have a theory and observational notes to back up a claim. Instead, the researcher must provide evidence to support the body of study and the resulting conclusions.

Present Findings

As the study progresses, the researcher develops a solid case to present to peers or a governing body. Case study presentation is important because it legitimizes the body of research and opens the findings to a broader analysis that may end up drawing a conclusion that’s more true to the data than what one or two researchers might establish. The presentation might be formal or casual, depending on the case study itself.

Draw Conclusions

Once the body of research is established, it’s time to draw conclusions from the case study. As with all social sciences studies, conclusions from one researcher shouldn’t necessarily be taken as gospel, but they’re helpful for advancing the body of knowledge in a given field. For that purpose, they’re an invaluable way of gathering new material and presenting ideas that others in the field can learn from and expand upon.


case study of pharmaceutical industry

Pharmaceutical Industry

This is one of many case study examples from the Case Library – ready to begin?

Case Study Prompt

Your client is a highly profitable pharmaceutical company that has a world leading position in one therapy area (TA) and is a niche player in a non-related therapy area.

The company currently has annual sales growth of 8%, but the CEO has set a target annual growth rate of 12-15% – in other words, he wants to triple their revenue over next 10 years.

However, their research project pipeline is thin. The research and development organization is heavily under-spending compared to their budget (they have a budget target of around 16% of revenue, but are not using all the money allocated). Senior management has little insight in how the R&D department operates.

Their growth target is ambitious but not unrealistic (given the money they have for investments and typical industry development).

What is the client’s key issue/problem?

Case Study Overview

A successful pharma company has hired you to help them grow revenues – specifically, to triple revenue over the next 10 years. The client wants you to diagnose key issues preventing growth, and to develop a strategy the company can implement immediately.

Now you need to create your framework to help you solve the case problem. How will you organize your data buckets? You can utilize the Profitability Framework to help build the structure, but don’t limit yourself to the basic frameworks. Think outside the box!

Case study examples like this can help you prepare for case interviews. This case will help you prep for a final round interview, with a qualitative difficulty of 4/4. The case also includes several math exhibits that you will interpret.

IQVIA Interview Tips

To crush your IQVIA case interview, you will need to demonstrate an ability to convert data into actionable insights.

Make sure you ask the right questions to gather the data you need to solve the case.

In a final round case like this, focus on your communication – clear and structured – and your overall polish.

For out-loud case practice, book a session with an expert coach today. Get more great case study examples by clicking back to the CL

There is no substitute for quality case prep

Access 500+ consulting cases (including answers) that represent 25+ firm styles and 4 levels of difficulty - all for one low price.

Consulting Case Library

Already purchased the Case Library? You'll probably need to log in to your account first.

Save your cart?


Modal title


ServiceNow | Pharmaceutical industry case study

Transforming service management for a global pharmaceutical company.

Joe Koester

Joe Koester

Principal, Advisory, Platforms, KPMG US

+1 703-307-1104

A leading global pharmaceutical company wanted to improve the way they organized, deployed, and managed IT services worldwide. For almost a decade, they had been using a legacy service management tool that had become highly cumbersome and fragmented, with disconnected processes forming silos across the organization. They wanted to introduce a standardized process model that could be rolled out internationally to create a comprehensive, consistent, and lasting solution. And they wanted this new model to be enabled by a single, market-leading ITSM platform.

Cover art

Pharmaceutical →

case study of pharmaceutical industry

Buy-In from Black Patients Suffers When Drug Trials Don’t Include Them

Diversifying clinical trials could build trust in new treatments among Black people and their physicians. Research by Joshua Schwartzstein, Marcella Alsan, and colleagues probes the ripple effects of underrepresentation in testing, and offers a call to action for drugmakers.

case study of pharmaceutical industry

Curbing an Unlikely Culprit of Rising Drug Prices: Pharmaceutical Donations

Policymakers of every leaning have vowed to rein in prescription drug costs, with little success. But research by Leemore Dafny shows how closing a loophole on drugmaker donations could eliminate one driver of rising expenses.

case study of pharmaceutical industry

Private and Social Returns to R&D: Drug Development and Demographics

Research and development (R&D) by pharmaceutical firms focuses disproportionately on medical conditions afflicting the elderly. The proportion of R&D spending targeting older age groups is increasing over time. Even though these investments in R&D prolong life expectancy and improve quality of life, they have little effect on measured productivity and output growth.

case study of pharmaceutical industry

What Does December's Drug-Approval Dash Mean for COVID-19 Vaccines?

Even in the best of times, pharmaceutical regulators tend to rush through drug applications in December. Now add in a ruthless pandemic. Research and insights from Lauren Cohen. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

What Can Economics Say About Alzheimer's Disease?

This essay discusses the role of market frictions and "missing medicines" in drug innovation and highlights how frameworks and toolkits of economists can help our understanding of the determinants and effects of Alzheimer's disease on health.

case study of pharmaceutical industry

How to Launch a New Biosciences Product: Start Small or Dive in?

C16 Biosciences wants to replace palm oil, a major contributor to deforestation, with a lab-grown substitute. But CEO Shara Ticku faces a tough decision in bringing the product to market. Jeff Bussgang discusses his case study. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

case study of pharmaceutical industry

COVID's Surprising Toll on Careers of Women Scientists

Women scientists and those with young children are paying a steep career price in the pandemic, according to new research by Karim Lakhani, Kyle Myers, and colleagues. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

case study of pharmaceutical industry

Merck CEO Ken Frazier Discusses a COVID Cure, Racism, and Why Leaders Need to Walk the Talk

VIDEO: Ken Frazier, one of only four Black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, speaks with Professor Tsedal Neeley about the search for a coronavirus vaccine, how racism at the workplace holds back America’s progress, and his own upbringing just one generation from slavery. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

case study of pharmaceutical industry

In a Pandemic, What’s the Best Strategy for the Global Vaccine Alliance?

How should the vaccine alliance Gavi respond to the worldwide need for a cure for the COVID-19 pandemic? Tarun Khanna discusses his case study. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

Rebates in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Evidence from Medicines Sold in Retail Pharmacies in the U.S.

Retail pharmacy data illustrates it can be misleading to use list prices instead of net prices to understand pharmaceutical prices. Analysts and economists working in public policy should be extremely cautious in drawing policy conclusions based on list prices alone.

case study of pharmaceutical industry

Pursuing Precision Medicine at Intermountain Healthcare

What happens when Intermountain Healthcare invests resources in an innovative precision medicine unit to provide life-extending, genetically targeted therapies to late-stage cancer patients? Professors Richard Hamermesh and Kathy Giusti discuss the case and its connections to their work with the Kraft Precision Medicine Accelerator. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

case study of pharmaceutical industry

In a Landscape of 'Me Too' Drug Development, What Spurs Radical Innovation?

Pharmaceutical companies are criticized for not producing more breakthrough drugs. But new research by Joshua Krieger and colleagues shows that, given a financial windfall, drug giants turn on the innovation. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

case study of pharmaceutical industry

When a Competitor Abandons the Market, Should You Advance or Retreat?

Companies pay close attention when a competitor drops out of the market, according to new research by Joshua Lev Krieger. Too often, though, they come to the wrong conclusion. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

Developing Novel Drugs

This paper contributes to our understanding of how financing constraints affect the direction of innovation in drug development. The authors develop a new measure of drug novelty based on molecular characteristics, and explore the tradeoffs involved in decisions to develop more novel therapies. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

case study of pharmaceutical industry

A Better Business Model for Fighting Cancer

The Kraft Precision Medicine Accelerator aims to speed up the development and delivery of cancer therapies by improving the business processes that surround them. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

Do All Your Detailing Efforts Pay Off? Dynamic Panel Data Methods Revisited

Personal selling in the form of detailing to physicians is the main go-to-market practice in the pharmaceutical industry. This paper provides a practical framework to analyze the effectiveness of detailing efforts. The method and empirical insights can help firms allocate sales-force resources more efficiently and devise optimal routes and call-pattern designs.

The Impact of the Entry of Biosimilars: Evidence from Europe

Biosimilars are large-molecule drugs that, while not an exact copy of already-approved large-molecule drugs, have been shown to be therapeutically equivalent. Much like generic drugs, which become available when a small-molecule drug goes off patent, biosimilars are lower in cost than their reference products and present an opportunity for savings when large-molecule drugs’ patents expire. Biosimilars have been available in the United States only since 2015 but have been regulated, approved, and sold in Europe for over a decade. This paper examines the European experience to help inform policy design and institutional choices for the United States. Topics covered include the entry of distributors and unique products; predictors of average product prices following biosimilar competition; and penetration of biosimilars as a share of total sales.

Public R&D Investments and Private-sector Patenting: Evidence from NIH Funding Rules

By tracing the often-circuitous path from National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding to patented innovations, this research examines the effects of public science on private sector innovation in the life sciences.

Reform Tax Law to Keep US Firms at Home

The flood of US corporations relocating to other countries is a hot topic in Congress. In recent testimony before the Senate Committee on Finance, Mihir Desai provided possible solutions around rethinking corporate tax and regulatory policy. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

Entrepreneurship and Multinationals Drive Globalization

Why is the firm overlooked as a contributor when we identify the drivers of globalization? Geoffrey Jones discusses his new book, Entrepreneurship and Multinationals: Global Business and the Making of the Modern World. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

An industrial case study: QbD to accelerate time-to-market of a drug product

AAPS Open volume  7 , Article number:  12 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

4995 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

The use of a Quality by Design (QbD) approach in the development of pharmaceutical products is known to bring many advantages to the table, such as increased product and process knowledge, robust manufacturing processes, and regulatory flexibility regarding changes during the commercial phase. However, many companies still adhere to a more traditional pharmaceutical process development—in some cases due to the difficulty of going from a theoretical view of QbD to its actual application. This article presents a real-world case study for the development of an industrial pharmaceutical drug product (oral solid dosage form) using the QbD methodology, demonstrating the activities involved and the gains in obtaining systematic process and product knowledge.


In 1992, Dr. Joseph M. Juran introduced the concept of quality being designed into a product and that most quality issues were related to the way in which the product was designed in the first place (Yu et al., 2014 ). Over time, this Quality by Design (QbD) approach was translated into the pharmaceutical industry, reaching its most important evolution steps with the publication of three guidelines by the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH), namely, ICH Q8(R2), Q9, and Q10 (ICH, 2009 ; ICH, 2005 ; ICH, 2008 ). These guidelines describe the elements of QbD: pharmaceutical development, quality risk management, and pharmaceutical quality system.

ICH Q8(R2) defines QbD as “a systematic approach to development that begins with predefined objectives and emphasizes product and process understanding and process control, based on sound science and quality risk management.” This is a clear and easy to understand description, at least in theory (ICH, 2009 ). In its form, QbD can be explained as an orderly, well-planned procedure to assemble and deliver quality. For that, it is required an extensive comprehension of how the product and process factors impact quality (Malik et al., 2019 ).

But how to go from definitions and guidelines to an actual process and product development in a real-world situation? The uncertainty in the answer drives many companies away from QbD and to adhere to a more traditional approach to pharmaceutical development. Figure 1 represents a workflow with all the important elements that must be present in a QbD development of a pharmaceutical product.

figure 1

Quality by Design methodology applied for a pharmaceutical product development

Just like the ICH Q8(R2) guideline indicates, one of the first elements to be defined is the Quality Target Product Profile (QTPP)—a summary of the desirable quality characteristics a product should have to ensure the desired quality, taking into account safety and efficacy of the drug product to the patient (Yu et al., 2014 ; ISPE, 2011 ). The end goal of process development is the definition of a control strategy that ensures that the process consistently delivers a product with the quality for which it was designed. The multidimensional combination and interaction of process inputs that have demonstrated to maintain the Critical Quality Attributes (CQA, i.e., the product quality characteristics that are critical for ensuring the safety and efficacy from a patient’s perspective) within their specification (and thus, assure quality) is called the Design Space (DS) (Yu et al., 2014 ; ICH, 2009 ; ISPE, 2011 ). This concept brings certain regulatory flexibility to the table, since alterations made within the DS are not considered changes (ICH, 2009 ). The elements represented in Fig. 1 are obtained using risk management and knowledge management methodologies. The combination of risk assessment (RA) and data analysis is one of the stone pillars for QbD and the opportunities for acquiring and managing knowledge based on this arrangement are central for a successful QbD pharmaceutical development and lifecycle management.

A drug product development case study

Herein, we describe how the QbD approach and its concepts, summarized in Fig. 1 , were applied to a real-case development of a generic pharmaceutical drug product (DP), i.e., of a drug intended to be submitted to the regulatory agencies as an alternative to a brand-name drug (patent-protected). The project’s goal was to develop a generic two-API (active pharmaceutical ingredient) solid dosage oral form using the QbD approach outlined in Fig. 1 , in order to obtain a deeper product and process understanding to expedite time to market, assure process assertiveness and reduce risk of defects after product launch. Limitations of this work are the ones typical of the development of a generic DP, where the physicochemical characteristics of the reference listed drug (patent-protected brand-name drug) must be considered. The proposed generic DP must be comparable to the innovator DP in dosage form, strength, route of administration, quality, performance characteristics, and intended use. So, the generic manufacturer must scientifically demonstrate that his product performs in the same way as the innovator drug with respect to pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties (e.g., by performing bioequivalence studies) for it to be approved for sale after the patent protections expire. This work is the result of a collaborative project between 4Tune Engineering and Libbs Farmacêutica.

Materials and methods

The pharmaceutical product considered in this case study consists of a generic two-API oral solid dosage form—coated tablets. Tablets are amongst the most common oral solid dosage forms and consist of a compressed powder formulation comprised of API(s) (or drug substance(s)) and inactive ingredients or excipients (e.g., fillers, binders, lubricants, disintegrants, coatings). A generic drug contains the same API as the original (patent-protected) innovator drug, but may vary in certain characteristics, such as the manufacturing process, formulation, and packaging. In this case study, the tablets have distinct dosages of the two active ingredients: one API is at very low amounts (2.5 mg), whereas the other is at a very high dose (up to 200 to 400 times higher). The reference DP is already available in the market to patients, with no reported risks related to drug-drug compatibility or with safety concerns to the patients. The unit operations involved are those typical of the manufacturing process of a coated tablet form, such as materials dispensing, fluid bed granulation and drying, blending, compression, and tablet coating. For confidentiality reasons, the names of raw materials, intermediates and DP, manufacturing operations, parameter ranges, and other manufacturing details are not disclosed throughout this article. The results presented serve only the purpose of exemplifying the methodology used.

The authors’ goal with this manuscript is to provide, in the form of a case study, a brief outline of the steps involved in the application of the QbD methodology in the development of a pharmaceutical product. It is out of this paper’s scope to give a technical review or discussion of the methodologies and techniques comprised in the QbD toolkit, such as design of experiments and modelling approaches, and quality risk management tools. The interested reader should consult specialized literature for further methods’ details. Methodology aspects related with design of experiments, multivariate analysis, modelling, and quality risk management are given, as required for the purpose of this work, along the “ 5 ” section, while going through the case study.

The designed experiments and analyses described herein were performed in software JMP® version 13 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA, 1989-2019). Principal Component Analysis (PCA) modelling and computer simulations were performed in MATLAB® version 2018a (The Math Works, Inc., Natick, MA, USA) and using PLS_Toolbox version 8.7 (Eigenvector Research, Inc., Manson, WA, USA).

The QbD methodology followed along this project for knowledge and risk management was supported by the use of the iRISK TM platform (version 2.8) (iRISK, 2021 ) by the interacting multidisciplinary technical team. Several iRISK TM tools were employed, such as Process Mapping, Critical Quality Attributes assessment tool, Cause-Effect matrix for risk assessment and criticality analysis, and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) for process risk assessment.

Results and discussion

How to combine risk and knowledge in pharmaceutical development.

Following the QbD methodology (Fig. 1 ), one of the first activities conducted in this work was a criticality assessment (CA) for the identification of CQAs. For this, the project team gathered as much product-related information as possible from literature, specific data of the reference product, and the QTPP. Having a list with the product quality attributes and their respective target values/ranges is standard: fulfilling these targets is mandatory for batch release. However, assessing these characteristics from a risk-to-patient perspective might be more complex. From a list of about 20 potential Critical Quality Attributes (pCQAs) collected by the team, a ranking system for pCQAs’ CA was applied based on a criticality score that considered the risk for the patient of each quality attribute. Specifically, the criticality score is a quantitative measure given by the product between uncertainty and impact . The uncertainty measures the relevance of the available information (e.g, literature, prior knowledge, in vitro, clinical data), i.e., if there is variation in a quality attribute, are the consequences for the patient well-known? The impact measures how severe will the change of a given quality attribute be in terms of efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. By setting up a criticality threshold and a numeric ranking, it is possible to have the quantification of risk and a more exact approach for defining the criticality. For the CA, the team employed a scoring scale with 5 levels (Impact score: 2 (none), 4 (low), 12 (moderate), 16 (high), and 20 (very high); Uncertainty score: 1 (very low), 2 (low), 3 (moderate), 5 (high), and 7 (very high)). During this exercise, the attributes with low uncertainty and low impact were not considered critical and, therefore, were classified as non-CQAs (Fig. 1 ); Quality attributes with low severity but high uncertainty were considered critical - unless more information had become available to lower their uncertainty. The use of a systematic quality risk management platform for this exercise, specifically iRISK TM CQA Assessment tool (iRISK, 2021 ), ensured standardization of the definition of critical quality by allowing an alignment of methodologies, concepts and evaluation criteria by the involved technical teams. At the end of this step, the project team identified about fifteen CQAs, such as assay, content uniformity and dissolution of each API, water content, and impurities.

With a clear definition of the critical quality elements and respective targets, the manufacturing process can now be designed to meet those requirements (Fig. 1 ). Five different manufacturing processes were then considered and evaluated by the technical team based on process knowledge and experience, and given the product’s specificities (namely the technical challenges related with the manufacture of a DP having two APIs at extremely different concentrations). Figure 2 shows the process flowchart for the chosen process comprising 10-unit operations, including materials dispensing, powdered material seiving, solution/suspension preparation steps, fluid bed granulation and drying, blending, compression, and tablet coating.

figure 2

Manufacturing process workflow of the pharmaceutical drug product (DP). The green boxes represent raw materials (RM)—both active pharmaceutical ingredients and excipients; the yellow boxes represent unit operations (UO ), and the blue box represents the final DP

In the next step of the QbD methodology (Fig. 1 ), the critical aspects of the product formulation and manufacturing process were assessed by following a combination of risk-based and data-driven approaches. A preliminary CA based on the reference product and/or similar products information (literature and prior knowledge) helped to identify which excipient and/or combination of excipients might present the highest risk of affecting the final product’s quality. This CA was performed using the risk tool Cause-Effect Matrix (CEM) (iRISK, 2021 ). In general terms, a CEM involves rating process inputs to process outputs based on their interaction impact, and then ranking process inputs based on the order of importance of the process output to the customer (ISPE, 2017 ; ISPE/PDA, 2019 ). For confidentiality reasons, the CEM generated at this stage of the project is not shown. It is similar to the CEM given in Fig. 4 , but has the formulation excipients in rows. The risk of a formulation component affecting a given final product’s CQA (entry of the CEM) was classified as low (score of 1), medium (score of 3), and high (score of 9) based on literature and prior knowledge, as stated above. This preliminary risk rank filtering of formulation components identified the two APIs and five excipients as having the highest impact on the product’s quality. Then, a design of experiments (DoE) approach (Montgomery, 2020 ) was followed to characterize these formulation components’ impact on the product’s CQAs, and their respective interactions, and therefore define the optimal quantities of each excipient in the drug formulation. A designed experiment consists of a set of trials, in which multiple input factors (independent variables) are manipulated to determine their effect on one or more response variables (dependent variables); these trails are run at different factor values (known as levels). DoE provides an efficient framework to do experimentation and thus increase process and product understanding and optimize processes. In fact, DoE can be applied for different investigation objectives, such as (1) screening studies (where the goal is to discover which are the most important factors that affect the process under study, given a large set of potential factors), (2) optimization studies (involve determining optimal factor settings to achieve a desired process objective), (3) regression modelling (where is goal is to produce a detailed mathematical model quantifying the dependence of response variables on process inputs, instead of just examining how factors contribute to a response), and (4) robustness studies (involve determining operational settings that are least affected by noise factors or uncontrolled factors variations (e.g., environmental variation, manufacturing variation) that might be expected during the process to ensure that the process is robust to them).

In this case, the formulation DoE was created using as factors the ratio between APIs (API-1/API-2, where API-1 is the low dosage API and API-2 is the high dosage one) and the percentage of five excipients (selected in the previous CA, as abovementioned). Based on the outcomes of the CA of the formulation components, the considered responses were the decrease in assay of each API, the amount of total impurities, and the amount of individual impurities of the final product. The type of screening design applied was a Definitive Screening Design (DSD) (SAS Institute, 2019 ). DSDs consist of an innovative and efficient class of screening designs, offering several advantages over standard screening designs (such as fractional factorial design). DSDs avoid confounding of effects (i.e., main effects are not confounded with each other or with two-way interactions) and can identify factors causing a nonlinear effect on the response (by employing three levels for each continuous factor—low, middle, and high—these designs allow estimation of quadratic model terms for continuous factors). Besides, DSDs require a small number of trials (e.g., with six or more factors, the minimum number of required runs is usually only a few more than twofold the number of factors). DSDs are appropriate for early-stage experimentation work, usually with four or more factors, and allow to perform screening, optimization, and robustness studies. These advantages of DSDs justified the selection of this type of screening against standard screening designs, such as fractional factorial designs, to perform the formulation screening and optimization studies, as a trade-off between budgetary constraints (time and resources) and knowledge expected to extract from the experiments. By applying a DSD, the formulation DoE therefore consisted of 13 trials, and each factor assumed three levels (low, middle, high).

Based on the DoE outcomes, multivariate linear regression models were built describing the relationship between the formulation components and the responses evaluated. These models were then used for formulation optimization (SAS Institute, 2019 ), i.e., to estimate the amount of each formulation component required to minimize the impurity profile of the drug product and minimize the decrease in assay. The formulation optimization was performed on the reduced models, i.e., models constructed after removing non-significant terms from the initial full DoE models (terms with a p -value above 0.05). The following three factors remained in the optimized multivariate linear models: API-1/API-2 ratio, amount of stabilizer, and amount of Excipient A. The optimal settings for the formulation components are represented in red in Fig. 3 (red dotted lines and red values). Each plot shows the effect of a given factor ( x -axis) on each of the responses ( y -axis). For example, the profiles indicate that: a) the % of Stabilizer in the formulation affects all the five responses (assay and impurity levels) and a lower content of Stabilizer has a detrimental effect on the DP assay; b) the amount of Excipient A in the formulation has no impact on Unknown Impurity B (flat line) but affects the other impurities; c) while the ratio of APIs has no effect on the DP assay (horizontal line), lower values of API-1/API-2 contribute to higher impurity levels of Unknown Impurity A and B.

figure 3

Optimization of the product formulation using DoE studies. Each plot shows the predicted effect of a given factor in the x -axis (formulation component) on each of the responses ( y -axis). The red dotted lines indicate the optimized solutions for the responses of interest (lowest impurity levels and lowest decrease in assay in the final drug product)

Next, a similar approach based on a CA exercise using the CEM risk tool (iRISK, 2021 ) was applied for defining the critical aspects of the manufacturing process, specifically to determine the Critical Process Parameters (CPPs)—Fig. 1 . As per ICH Q8(R2), a CPP is “a process parameter whose variability has an impact on a CQA and therefore should be monitored or controlled to ensure the process produces the desired quality” (ICH, 2009 ).

The first step involved applying the CEM tool to rate the unit operations in terms of their impact on the product’s CQAs (scoring scale: low = 1; medium = 3; high = 9). These results supported a prioritization, in which the unit operations having the potential strongest impact (highest overall score) on the product’s CQAs were assessed first. As shown in Fig. 4 , unit operations UO2 and UO6 were the top-ranking ones.

figure 4

Criticality assessment of the unit operations (UOs) using iRISK TM Cause-Effect Matrix. The risk of a given UO (in rows) affecting a given product’s CQA (in columns) was classified as low (score of 1), medium (score of 3), and high (score of 9). Due to confidentiality reasons, not all of the CQAs are shown. Given their higher overall score, operations UO2 and UO6 (highlighted) were identified as the top 2 UOs potentially affecting the product’s Critical Quality Attributes (CQAs)

These two process steps (UO2 and UO6) were then investigated by running DoEs with the goal of understanding which process parameters (PPs) were influencing the CQAs and in which extent. First, a prioritization step using the CEM tool (iRISK, 2021 ) was done in order to select from the original 20 PPs of UO2 and UO6, those to be considered for the DoEs. This PPs ranking was based on their level of impact in the final product’s quality (scoring scale: low = 1; medium = 3; high = 9), leading to the selection of 8 potential CPPs (pCPPs) for UO2, and 6 pCPPs for UO6 (not disclosed herein, due to confidentiality reasons). Then, in both cases, the DoE followed a DSD, given the advantages provided by this type of experimental design and the scope of the experimental work (process screening and optimization). Three levels were therefore considered for each factor in both DoEs (low, middle, and high); the DoEs considered 17 runs for UO2 (with 8 PPs used as factors and 7 CQAs as responses) and 13 runs for UO6 (with 6 PPs considered factors and 7 CQAs considered responses). The responses were the same for both DoEs and included relevant quality attributes of the final DP, such as assay, content uniformity, and dissolution. Figure 5 exemplifies how the knowledge obtained from the UO2 DoE analysis can support the identification of CPPs. The right-hand plot shows the true versus predicted values of Assay of API-1 obtained after fitting a multiple linear regression model to the UO2 DoE data. The model constructed to predict Assay of API-1 considers a quadratic term (UO2_PP4*UO2_PP4), three main effects (UO2_PP4, UO2_PP3, and UO2_PP6) and a two-way interaction (UO2_PP3*UO2_PP6). Criticality of UO2_PP3 and UO2_PP4 was thus set to critical (CPPs) in the criticality assessment table of iRISK TM (left-hand panel in Fig. 5 ) since the variability of these PPs is directly impacting at least one of the CQAs (assay of API-1 in this case) in a significant way (as given by the calculated p -values of the multiple linear models’ outcomes; model terms with a p -value below 0.05 are considered significant). Parameters UO2_PP1 and UO2_PP2 were also found to be critical, presenting a significant relationship with other CQAs at a 0.05 level (data not shown).

figure 5

Update of the criticality assessment for the process parameters of unit operation UO2 in the iRISK TM platform (left-hand panel) based on the DoE outcomes (right-hand panel; the plot shows the actual versus predicted values by the model fitted for one of the responses evaluated in the DoE (assay of API-1)). Criticality of parameters UO2_PP4 and UO2_PP3 was set as critical (CPP = critical process parameter) since their variation affects the assay of API-1 (at the 0.05 significance level)

Regarding UO6, parameters UO6_PP1 and UO6_PP3 were found to be critical (data not shown). Besides confirming the criticality of potential CPPs of UO2 and UO6, the DoE results allowed defining a preliminary operating range for their PPs to be tested on the scale-up stage. For unit operations without a DoE analysis, results from additional experimental work were used to justify the criticality of their respective PPs. In the absence of evidence to classify a given PP as critical or non-critical, the PP was considered a pCPP. Overall, more than 10 PPs were identified as CPPs in the entire manufacturing process. Since most of the information was obtained at a small scale, the scaling up was a step of utmost importance. A small-scale DS was initially defined considering the knowledge obtained from the CA and the DoE results.

Process knowledge, scale-up studies, and control strategy definition

In the early stages of pharmaceutical process development, investigations are performed at a small scale. Transformations of the small-scale observations into commercial-scale development (Fig. 1 ) require different design strategies and different equipment which may cause differences in product quality (Raval et al., 2018 ). To cope with these potential differences in quality due to the presence of scale-up effects when transferring from small scale to commercial scale, the DS in commercial scale must be adapted accordingly.

For the presented case study process, an assessment of the unit operations indicated that both UO2 and UO6 were scale dependent. Ideally, a DoE should be performed at a commercial scale, using the knowledge collected at a small scale as the foundation for selecting PPs to be tested and their respective ranges. This scale-up DoE would allow to (a) confirm the criticality of the PPs, (b) define the optimal ranges for commercial-scale manufacturing, and (c) develop statistical models linking the CPPs with the CQAs. As for this project, it was not feasible to perform a full DoE at a commercial scale for UO2 and UO6. Instead, the process operational ranges for UO2 and UO6 were defined based on a small set of commercial scale batches manufactured at specific conditions, supported by knowledge acquired during the small-scale activities, as described next.

The methodology involved the use of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and the available production batches (observations): 9 compliant batches (i.e., batches conforming to the acceptance criteria for all CQAs) and one non-compliant batch (i.e., a batch that failed to meet the acceptance criteria for at least one CQA). PCA is a multivariate projection method of data reduction or data compression. It transforms a large set of variables into a smaller dimensional set of new variables designated as principal components (PC), each of which is a linear combination of the original ones. In PCA, the new variables are uncorrelated; the first PC to be extracted (PC1) captures the highest amount of variability in the data set and each successive component accounts for as much of the remaining variability as possible (Jackson, 1991 ; Esbensen and Geladi, 2009 ; Næs et al., 2017 ). The dimensionality reduction provided by PCA allows a simplified representation of the data set, which facilitates exploring and interpreting its correlation structure. This feature of PCA was thus applied at this stage of the project to estimate the process operational ranges for UO2 and UO6. First, a PCA model was built using the values of the selected CPPs for UO2 and UO6 (total of 6 CPPs: 4 for UO2 and 2 for UO6) for the 9 compliant batches. This model allowed to obtain a simplified bidimensional representation of the two major sources of variability of the CPPs for UO2 and UO6, as denoted by the so-called score plot for the first two principal components of the model (PC1 and PC2). The score plot is a scatter plot of the scores of each sample (i.e., the projection of the sample/observation in the PC) on the two components and allows to examine the relationship between samples (Jackson, 1991 ; Esbensen and Geladi, 2009 ; Næs et al., 2017 ). The score plot for PC2 versus PC1 is shown in Fig. 6 A, where each green dot corresponds to a compliant batch (total of 9 batches, as mentioned above); these two components capture about 75.4% of the total variability present in the data. The score plot (Fig. 6 A) also shows the predicted scores of the non-compliant production batch (red dot) whose CPPs values were not used to build the original PCA model. The score plot was then used to obtain an initial estimate of the DS for UO2 and UO6: this corresponds to the rectangle area delimited by PC1 and PC2 scores of the compliant batches (green dots), which is outlined by the blue rectangle in Fig. 6 A. This region intentionally excludes the predicted non-compliant batch (red dot), since the goal is to define the process operating ranges for UO2 and UO6 expected to result in compliance batches. Note that these two components (PC1 and PC2) can be described as a linear combination of the CPPs (not given here), so the selected score plot region can be converted in ranges for each of the 6 considered CPPs of UO2 and UO6.

figure 6

Definition of the operational ranges for UO2 and UO6 using PCA modelling and computer simulations. Top left panel ( A ): PCA score plot of the analysis of 9 compliant manufactured batches ( green dots ). The data set consists of the CPPs values measured for UO2 and UO6; the score plot represents the first two principal components (PC1 and PC2), which describe 53.7% and 21.7% of the variance in the data, respectively. The dashed line corresponds to the 95% confidence ellipse for the model scores. The red dot shows the model predicted scores for a non-compliant production batch. The blue outlined rectangle that covers only compliant batches defines a first estimate of UO2 and UO6 design space (DS). Top right panel ( B ): PCA model projections for two different sets of batch simulation runs (100,000 samples per run) made to refine the acceptable ranges for UO2 and UO6 CPPs. Each small point corresponds to the predicted model scores for a simulated batch (sample) that has been generated by considering random combinations of the CPPs values within a predefined admissible range (see text for further details). Predicted scores were projected onto the original score plot shown in panel A . The blue outlined rectangle represents the first DS estimate, as defined in panel A , and was used as an acceptance criterion for model predicted scores together with other two diagnostic statistics (Hotelling’s T 2 and sum of squared residuals). The small red and green dots correspond to a set of simulations made after a first refinement of the admissible values for CPPs, where simulated samples satisfying all the acceptance criteria are shown in green. The small blue dots represent the model outcomes for a final set of simulations made after a second (and final) refinement of the CPPs ranges, whereby all simulated batches were found to comply with the predefined acceptance criteria. Bottom panel ( C ): The table summarizes the initial experimental ranges of the manufactured compliant batches ( orange ) and the final restricted ranges ( blue ) obtained for each CPP of UO2 and UO6 based on the described methodology

The next stage of the procedure involved several batch simulation runs, whereby different combinations of the CPPs values within a specified range were randomly chosen to create new hypothetical batches (100,000 simulated batches). The first round of 100,000 simulated batches considered a broader range of possible values for UO2 and UO6 CPPs (namely, within 0.75 times below and 1.5 times above the lower and upper limits, respectively, reported by the 10 manufactured batches). The previously derived PCA model was then applied to these simulated batches, and only those batches satisfying the following three criteria were considered “acceptable” batches: (i) predicted score values for PC1 and PC2 within the defined DS estimate (blue rectangle in Fig. 6 A); (ii) Hotelling’s T 2 statistics below 80% of the maximum value obtained by the model, and (iii) a sum of squared residuals below 80% of the 95% confidence limit of the model residuals. Hotelling’s T 2 and squared residuals are two useful diagnostic statistics that allow assessing whether a sample has an unusual variance inside the model (sample with large Hotelling’s T 2 ) and/or outside the model (sample with large residuals). Hotelling’s T 2 (or sum of normalized squared scores) measures the distance from a sample to the centre of the model; The sum of squared residuals of a sample provides a measure of the distance between the sample and its projection on the model (i.e., lack of fit of the model to each sample) (Jackson, 1991 ; Esbensen and Geladi, 2009 ; Næs et al., 2017 ). These “acceptable” simulated batches were then employed to perform a first refinement of the CPPs ranges to use for UO2 and UO6, by assuming the 95% confidence interval for each CPP in the “acceptable” simulated batches. These new ranges of admissible values for CPPs were considered to generate a second set of random batches (100,000 batches). The resulting PCA model predictions are projected on the score plot in Fig. 6 B (small red and green dots) and were assessed based on the same acceptance criteria (i)–(iii) outlined above for prediction scores and the two diagnostic statistics. The simulated samples satisfying all the acceptance criteria correspond to the small green points shown in Fig.  6 B.

Finally, a second refinement of the allowable ranges for CPPs was made by running consecutive sets of batch simulations (100,000 batches per run) within decreasing ranges of CPPs values and assessing their PCA model predictions based on the previously defined acceptance criteria. The widest restricted ranges of CPPs values leading to a 100% “acceptance” rate of simulated batches were chosen as the final restricted ranges. The model projections for 100,000 simulations computed within these new restricted CPPs ranges are shown by the blue dots in Fig. 6 B. The restricted CPPs ranges are disclosed in Fig.  6 C (in blue; for comparison, the full ranges for the nine CQA-compliant production batches are included in orange). These CPPs ranges were employed to define the Normal Operating Range (NOR) for UO2 and UO6 and were applied at production to manufacture three validation batches, which fulfilled all quality requirements.

In parallel with the scale-up activities and following the QbD workflow (Fig. 1 ), a process RA was performed using the Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) methodology. With a wide application in manufacturing industries, FMEA is a risk management tool used by many pharmaceutical companies for risk ranking; FMEA provides a systematic method of identifying and preventing system, product, and process problems before they occur (ICH, 2005 ; ISPE, 2017 ; ISPE/PDA, 2019 ; ASQ, 2020 ; Stamatis, 2003 ; Stamatis, 2019 ). Along the FMEA exercise (iRISK, 2021 ), a multidisciplinary technical team identified, analysed, and prioritized the risks, creating a list of all the failure modes that may occur during commercial manufacturing and the potential effects related to each failure. Additionally, the FMEA allowed the quantification of risks and prioritization for their mitigation and/or elimination by classifying the risk according to the severity of the effect, and the occurrence and detectability probabilities for the failure mode (Fig. 7 ). The risk priority number (RPN) allows the quantification of risk by multiplying severity, occurrence, and detectability values. Thus, FMEA represents a systematic methodology to rate the risks relative to each other. For that, a rating scale for severity, occurrence, and detectability was agreed between the technical team and applied along the FMEA activity. The scale considered a 5-level rank of even values ranging from 2 to 10. Additionally, it was defined beforehand a threshold value for RPN (in this case RPN of 288) above which mitigation actions should be defined to reduce the risk.

figure 7

Decomposition of risk in severity , occurrence and detectability , and identification of the source of knowledge used for their assessment (CQAs, critical quality attributes)

Severity was attributed according to the impact of the identified risk on the product’s quality and compliance, by extension, based on the impact for the patient. For example, if a risk describes an increase outside the operating range for a certain PP and that increase causes the CQA to go out of specification, adversely affecting the patient’s health, then the risk severity was classified as very high (rank of 10). If a given failure does not affect the product’s quality and the patient’s health and safety, its severity is ranked as very low (rank of 2). Likelihood of occurrence was quantified in terms of how often that event might occur during routine batch manufacturing (a rank of 2 if the failure is unlikely; a rank of 4 if the failure has a probability of occurrence below 1%; a rank of 6 if there are 5 occurrences in 100 events; a rank of 8 if the failure is frequent but with a probability below 10%; and a rank of 10 if the failure is very frequent with a probability of having more than 3 occurrences in 10 events).

During scale-up and additional batches manufacture, certain failure modes with a low occurrence frequency during development were often observed (i.e., had high probability of occurrence); this reveals the importance of revising the RA throughout the product’s lifecycle. The same principle applies to the likelihood of detection, which quantifies how easy and quick the detection of a certain failure mode is. The detectability scale ranged from 2 (if the failure mode was easily and always detected) to a rank of 10 (when the failure mode was hard to detect and only detected in less than 67% of the cases).

Along the FMEA, about 100 failure modes were identified, with the majority (90%) being classified as easily and always detected (detectability rank of 2; and with a RPN not greater than 72) since there were reliable detection controls in place and the process automatically prevented further processing. Moreover, only 10% of the identified failure modes had a RPN equal to or greater than 128, but none exceeded the predefined threshold (RPN of 288).

More than 40% of the failure modes identified in the RA were related to UO2 operation, followed by UO7 operation with about 25% of the failure modes.

A robust control strategy, with a strong monitoring plan, can help reduce the occurrence and/or improve the detectability of specific failure modes, thus mitigating risk.

After finalizing the RA, despite none of the classified failure modes surpassing the RPN threshold, the technical team decided to address some of the ones with high-ranking RPN values. For example, a mitigation action was defined for a failure mode with a RPN value of 256. The action was a verification step for a certain equipment to check for its integrity status. By implementing this mitigation action, the RPN dropped to an acceptable value (RPN = 128) due to an improvement in the failure mode’s detectability (detection rank dropped from 8 to a value of 4). This verification step was added to the control strategy as a preventive control.

By the end of process development (Fig. 1 ), the process control strategy was defined based on the RA exercise and the characteristics of the NOR/DS. The control strategy was formalized in several facilitation sessions with a multidisciplinary team and the support of iRISK TM risk management platform (iRISK, 2021 ). The control strategy was composed by preventive controls (e.g., equipment calibration), detective controls (e.g., alarms), and in-process controls, amongst others.

By adopting QbD during pharmaceutical development, deep process and product understanding were obtained, allowing the creation of a knowledge base for the product. With a higher understanding of the relationship between the process and the product, it is possible to know what impact a certain change in process will have, supporting the decision-making flow (ISPE, 2011 ). Besides, it is important to update the knowledge base whenever a critical change (e.g., change in supplier, change of equipment) or deviation (e.g., equipment out of calibration, error in following a given operating instruction) occurs. The change control system handles changes done in the context of continuous improvement or by necessity (e.g., change of a raw material supplier). The change must be evaluated with a knowledge and risk-based approach, hence why it is important to keep the risk and knowledge base updated. Depending on the type of change, its implementation might require prior approval from the regulatory authorities (ICH, 2019 ). There is an interactive flow of information between the risk management and data/knowledge management systems, as represented in Fig. 8 . The use of monitoring systems and the establishment of a Continued Process Verification (CPV) plan, as well as the application of data analysis strategies, allow the continuous flow of knowledge regarding the state of the process. This information can be used to update the RA, supporting the identification of new risks that might be detected and revision of existing ones. Depending on their criticality, risks might have to be addressed and the control strategy may need to be improved by implementing risk mitigation actions. An improved control strategy should be able to keep the process in control; this can be monitored in the CPV programme. This flow of information should be managed during the entire product’s lifecycle for the resulting knowledge base to be representative of the current situation regarding the product’s quality and the process’s performance.

figure 8

Flow of data, knowledge, and risk: these are continuously being updated and iterating with each other throughout the product’s lifecycle

Product lifecycle management activities include all that was done through development until the product is no longer commercialized. It is important to look at lifecycle management at a commercial stage through a continuous improvement lens since it is about maximizing the value of the product to the patient (Tiene, 2017 ). This can include changes in formulation, process unit operations, packaging, delivery systems, or even the inclusion of Information Technology or automation solutions for improving and automatizing the collection and assessment of data and risks. The use of an up-to-date knowledge base regarding the product and process greatly supports the selection of improvement actions since their impact will be better understood.

This article describes a successful application of Quality by Design to the development of a pharmaceutical generic drug product (coated tablet form). By following a QbD approach, a significant reduction of 30% in the overall development and validation time was achieved when compared to a traditional approach. The collection of knowledge in a systematic manner allowed the definition of a robust process that will consistently achieve the desired product quality. Future decision-making and continuous improvement activities will likewise be supported by the gained product and process understanding. One may expect that its lifecycle management to be much less unpredictable given the much higher level of process and product knowledge established. Additionally, this methodology can be easily transferred to the development of other products, bringing in further acceleration to the standard pharmaceutical development process. Overall, a more efficient and with enhanced quality critical path was followed and shown feasible. This translates into higher quality, safety, and efficacy of medicines for patients.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to confidentiality reasons.


Active pharmaceutical ingredient

Criticality assessment

Cause-effect matrix

Critical material attribute

Critical process parameter

Continued process verification

Critical quality attribute

Definitive screening design

Drug product

Design space

Failure mode and effect analysis

International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use

Normal operating range

Principal component analysis

Principal component

Potential critical material attribute

Potential critical process parameter

Potential critical quality attribute

Process parameter

Quality target product profile

Risk assessment

Raw material

Risk priority number

Unit operation

American Society for Quality (ASQ). Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). . Accessed October 2020.

Esbensen KH, Geladi P (2009) 2.13 - Principal component analysis: concept, geometrical interpretation, mathematical background, algorithms, history, practice. In: Brown SD, Tauler R, Walczak B (eds) Comprehensive chemometrics. Elsevier, Oxford, p 211–226. ISBN 9780444527011. .

International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) (2005) ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline – Q9 Quality Risk Management. .

International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) (2008) ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline – Q10 Pharmaceutical Quality System. .

International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) (2009) ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline - Q8(R2) Pharmaceutical Development. .

International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) (2019) ICH Harmonised Guideline – Q12 Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management. .

International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE) (2011) Part 1 - Product Realization using Quality by Design (QbD): Concepts and Principles. In: ISPE Guide Series: Product Quality Lifecycle Implementation (PQLI®) from Concept to Continual Improvement. .

International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE) (2017) Volume 7 – Risk-based manufacture of pharmaceutical products. 2nd ed. In: ISPE Baseline® Guide. .

International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE) / Parenteral Drug Association (PDA) (2019) ISPE – PDA guide to improving quality culture in pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities. .

iRISK TM . The next generation risk management platform, . Accessed Feb 2021.

Jackson JE (1991) A user’s guide to principal components, 1st edn. John Wiley & Sons, New York. ISBN 0-471-62267-2.

Malik A, Gochhayat G, Alam M, Kumar M, Pal P, Singh R, Saini V (2019) Quality by design: a new practice for production of pharmaceutical products. J Drug Deliv Ther 9(1-S):416-424:10.22270/jddt.v9i1-s.2370

Google Scholar  

Montgomery DC (2020) Design and analysis of experiments. 10th edn. John Wiley & Sons, New York. ISBN 978-1119722106.

Næs T, Isaksson T, Fearn T, Davies T (2017) A user-friendly guide to multivariate calibration and classification, 2nd edn. NIR Publications, Chichester. ISBN 978-1-906715-25-0.

Raval N, Tambe V, Maheshwari R, Deb PK, Tekade RK (2018) Chapter 19 - Scale-up studies in pharmaceutical products development. In: Tekade RK (ed) Advances in Pharmaceutical product development and research, dosage form design considerations. Academic Press, p 669-670. ISBN 9780128144237. .

SAS Institute, Inc. (2019) JMP® 15 Design of experiments guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

Stamatis DH (2003) Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA from theory to execution, 2nd edn. . American Society for Quality (ASQ) Quality Press. ISBN 978-0-87389-598-9.

Stamatis DH (2019) Risk Management Using Failure Mode And Effect Analysis (FMEA). . American Society for Quality (ASQ) Quality Press. ISBN 978-0-87389-978-9.

Tiene G (2017) Lifecycle management strategies can uncover hidden value. Pharma Manufacturing (internet; cited 8 Mar 2017). Available via .

Yu LX, Amidon G, Khan MA, Hoag SW, Polli J, Raju GK, Woodcock J (2014) Understanding pharmaceutical quality by design. AAPS J 16(4):771–783.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Download references


This work was carried out as a collaborative project between 4Tune Engineering and Libbs Farmacêutica. 4Tune Engineering is a consulting company with over 18 years of experience in the pharmaceutical area. Founded in 1958, Libbs Farmacêutica is a pharmaceutical company in the forefront of key innovation projects within Brazil’s industry: it is a pioneer in the launch of biosimilars and monoclonal antibodies in Brazil and currently produces ninety different products. We would like to thank all the departments involved in the project at Libbs Farmacêutica for their support, commitment, and dedication; we would also like to thank João Almeida Lopes for his technical contribution.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

4Tune Engineering Lda., Av. António Augusto Aguiar 108-4, 1050-019, Lisbon, Portugal

Madalena Testas, Lígia Pedroso Braz & José Cardoso Menezes

Department of Research and Development, Libbs Farmacêutica Ltda, Embu das Artes, SP, Brazil

Tiago da Cunha Sais, Leonardo Piccoli Medinilha, Katia Nami Ito Niwa, Lucas Sponton de Carvalho, Silvia Duarte Maia & Cássio Yooiti Yamakawa

4Tune Engineering Lda., Brazil Office, Avenida Vereador Narciso Yague Guimarães, 1145; Sala 1008 - Helbor Concept Office, São Paulo, Brazil

Anderson Flores

Department of Production, Libbs Farmacêutica Ltda, Embu das Artes, SP, Brazil

Cássio Yooiti Yamakawa

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar


All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by MT, TCS, and LPM. The first draft of the manuscript was written by MT and critically reviewed, commented, and edited by LPB. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. The final manuscript was prepared by MT and LPB. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Cardoso Menezes .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest involved in the preparation of this article.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit .

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Testas, M., da Cunha Sais, T., Medinilha, L.P. et al. An industrial case study: QbD to accelerate time-to-market of a drug product. AAPS Open 7 , 12 (2021).

Download citation

Received : 14 May 2021

Accepted : 06 December 2021

Published : 24 December 2021


Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

case study of pharmaceutical industry


Pharmaceutical industry

Reputation and its risks.

Capitalizing on Capabilities

Strategy and Your Stronger Hand

The Cane Mutiny

case study of pharmaceutical industry

How Pharma Can Fix Its Reputation and Its Business at the Same Time

case study of pharmaceutical industry

What It Takes to Lead a Disease Research Foundation

From Managing Pills to Managing Brands

And Now, a Word from Our Sponsor (HBR Case Study)

case study of pharmaceutical industry

White Coats, Black Scientists

case study of pharmaceutical industry

Conflict-of-Interest Rules Are Holding Back Medical Breakthroughs

All the Wrong Moves (HBR Case Study and Commentary)

case study of pharmaceutical industry

How Pharma Companies Game the System to Keep Drugs Expensive

Bet on One Big Idea--or Diversify? (HBR Case Study and Commentary)

case study of pharmaceutical industry

An Exercise to Get Your Team Thinking Differently About the Future

Biogen Unchained

The Forgotten Strategy

Conquering a Culture of Indecision (HBR Classic)

Creating breakthroughs at 3m.

case study of pharmaceutical industry

Adopting AI in Health Care Will Be Slow and Difficult

Leveraging the Psychology of the Salesperson: A Conversation with Psychologist and Anthropologist G. Clotaire Rapaille

case study of pharmaceutical industry

Pfizer and AstraZeneca: Marketing an Acquisition (B)

The Mercks of Darmstadt: What Family Can Do (A)

Schering-Plough and Genome Therapeutics: Discovering an Asthma Gene

Growth Strategies in the Pharmaceutical Industry (A)

Novartis (A): Being a Global Leader, Japanese Version

Napo Pharmaceuticals

Procter & Gamble: Electronic Data Capture and Clinical Trial Management

A Bitter Pill for Pharmaceutical Counterfeits: Behind China's Serialisation Technology

Biovail Corporation: Revenue Recognition and FOB Sales Accounting, Spanish Version

Genetic Testing and the Puzzles We Are Left To Solve (D): Discovery of "Nonpaternity"

Pilgrim Drug Co.

Abbott and the AIDS Crisis (A)

Organizing for Innovation at Glenmark (B)

Genetic Testing and the Puzzles We Are Left To Solve (J): The Role of Insurance in Patient and Physician Decisions

Cipla 2011, spanish version.

Venture Valuation AG: The Genedata Assignment

Kevin Simpson Confronts 'Click-Through' Competition, Spanish Version

GlaxoSmithKline: Sourcing Complex Professional Services

Cooper Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Popular Topics

Partner center.

case study of pharmaceutical industry

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Please enable javascript to use our site

Inpharmation — Case Studies

Case studies.

Real-world evidence of delivering strategic insights to the pharmaceutical industry

Inpharmation runs global projects for the majority of top-50 pharmaceutical companies, across all major therapy areas., below you can browse a selection of projects showcasing examples of real-world strategic insights inpharmation delivers., to receive your full free copy of any case study:.

Informing pricing prospects for a gene therapy in-licensing deal

To in-license, or not to in-license? Our client wanted to evaluate the price potential of a promising new product. The indication had a high unmet need and there was potential for the product to be used in future combination therapies. A lack of analogues and tight timelines added further complexity to the project. Inpharmation’s combination […]

Second indication, a second chance?

Analogue-based pricing had previously failed our client. They now had just eight weeks to make a launch or no-launch decision for a second indication. An evidence-based approach was needed to prevent repeating past mistakes.

Where do you start with pricing when the future landscape is unknown?

Limited clinical trial data, multiple lines of treatment and a changing pricing landscape presented challenges for the pricing assessment of an innovative oncology asset. However, Inpharmation’s evidence-based techniques were able to provide a flexible solution within the customer’s tight timelines.

How a flexible approach to pricing research allowed a rapid change of direction when unexpected trial results emerged

A pharma company wanted to launch its asset into a second indication. However, just as Inpharmation’s research was coming to an end, unexpected clinical trial results were revealed. This required a rapid change in strategy.

One chronic illness, many unlicensed treatments and one pipeline asset: Where do you start with pricing?

A leading pharma company needed to understand the price potential of their novel first-in class asset. Without any direct comparators, they were unsure what price they could achieve and how payers were going to behave. Inpharmation’s evidence-based approaches provided the perfect solution…

A clinical advance with a novel mechanism of action: What will its uptake look like?

With no obvious analogues and mixed messages from previous demand and qualitative research, our client was unsure what their novel asset’s uptake would look like. Inpharmation had the ideal approach to provide validated insights and evidence-based results…

How preconceived ideas of sample size nearly soured a great project

Pharma Specific Conjoint offered an ideal solution for our client. However, the significantly smaller sample size, compared to that of discrete-choice conjoint, lead to the project being met with reservations. A solution was needed to demonstrate the accuracy of our methodology.

How a lack of analogues could have undervalued a promising in-licensing opportunity

High unmet need offered a promising environment for a new asset; however, with no obvious analogues to quantify price potential, an approach ideal for an indication with no current treatments was needed…

A promising cardiovascular treatment in a highly prevalent disease

A highly prevalent disease with existing inexpensive therapies presented a challenging pricing environment for our client’s cardiovascular treatment. To deliver the optimal pricing strategy, Inpharmation used a combination of primary and secondary pricing techniques.

How analogue-based pricing confused a team of pricing experts

Traditional analogue-based pricing and qualitative payer interviews left our client confused when pricing an asset in a previously untreated disease with an uncertain patient population. Behavior-Based Pricing provided much needed clarity by drawing upon thousands of real-world payer decisions.

Manufacturing & Pharmaceutical case studies

Confidential life science & technology client, confidential client, ihi corporation ltd, how can we help.

United Nations Digital Library System

Browse Subjects

Downloads Statistics


  1. What are pharmaceutical case studies?

    case study of pharmaceutical industry

  2. Case Study

    case study of pharmaceutical industry

  3. Case Study: Pharmaceutical Industry

    case study of pharmaceutical industry

  4. PPT

    case study of pharmaceutical industry

  5. Case Study

    case study of pharmaceutical industry

  6. Azerbaijan Pharmaceutical Company Mail : Pdf Analysis And Prioritization Of Effective Strategies

    case study of pharmaceutical industry


  1. Complex & Custom Engineered HVAC Systems for Clean Rooms, Pharmaceutical Compounding & Mobile Labs

  2. Pharmaceutical Industry Training Details

  3. Lecture 5 / Industrial Pharmacy (2)

  4. Pharmacovigilance#Case Processing Workflow Basic#L1#Session 22

  5. Webinar on Unit Operations in Pharmaceutical Industry

  6. Case Study 16: Altered Mental Status (1)


  1. What Is a Case Study?

    When you’re performing research as part of your job or for a school assignment, you’ll probably come across case studies that help you to learn more about the topic at hand. But what is a case study and why are they helpful? Read on to lear...

  2. Why Are Case Studies Important?

    Case studies are important because they help make something being discussed more realistic for both teachers and learners. Case studies help students to see that what they have learned is not purely theoretical but instead can serve to crea...

  3. What Are Some Examples of Case Studies?

    Examples of a case study could be anything from researching why a single subject has nightmares when they sleep in their new apartment, to why a group of people feel uncomfortable in heavily populated areas. A case study is an in-depth anal...

  4. Pharmaceutical Case Studies l Pharma Intelligence

    For an in-depth examination of trending topics affecting the pharmaceuticals and medtech industries, access case studies from Pharma Intelligence.

  5. Pharmaceutical Industry

    Pharmaceutical Industry · A therapy area is a disease area, i.e., oncology, diabetes, respiratory or pain control · They develop and sell prescription drugs only

  6. Pharmaceutical industry case study

    ServiceNow | Pharmaceutical industry case study. Transforming service management

  7. Pharmaceutical: Articles, Research, & Case Studies

    Pharmaceutical companies are criticized for not producing more breakthrough drugs. But new research by Joshua Krieger and colleagues shows that

  8. An industrial case study: QbD to accelerate time-to-market of a drug

    The use of a Quality by Design (QbD) approach in the development of pharmaceutical products is known to bring many advantages to the table

  9. My favorite pharma marketing case studies

    Pharma Marketing Case Study #1 - Depression Hurts ... in the pharma industry): "While people know about the classic symptoms, like sadness

  10. Pharmaceutical industry

    (HBR Case Study) · Strategy & Execution Magazine Article. Toby Stuart. A unique probiotic formulation, L-39, has great promise as a pharmaceutical treatment

  11. Pharmaceutical Industry Case Studies

    Inpharmation has run projects in all major therapy areas and for most top-50 pharmaceutical companies delivering strategic insights across the industry.

  12. Manufacturing & Pharmaceutical case studies

    Case studies of ERM's work done in the Manufacturing & Pharmaceutical industries.

  13. A case study of the pharmaceutical industry in India /

    TitleA case study of the pharmaceutical industry in India / Biswajit Dhar and C. Niranjan Rao ; with inputs by Veena Gupta. AccessEnglish: iteipcmisc22_en

  14. A Case Study of Henry Ford Health System