Thursday, 25 July 2024

Life Sciences Industry Faces Setbacks: The Impact of Failed Clinical Trials in 2024

28 June 2024 | Analysis | By Ankit Kankar |

As the industry strives for innovation, the challenges and failures in clinical trials highlight the need for strategic imperatives and adaptive approaches.

The Life Sciences Industry: Pitfalls and the Impact of Failed Clinical Trials in 2024

The life sciences industry is at the forefront of innovation, striving to develop new therapies and medical technologies that improve human health. However, the journey from discovery to market is fraught with challenges, and not every promising development makes it to the finish line. Clinical trials, a critical phase in this journey, often face significant hurdles that can lead to failure. In 2024, these failures and their implications are shaping the dynamics of the industry in profound ways.

Let’s explore the pitfalls of the life sciences sector and the imperatives arising from failed clinical trials.

The High Stakes of Clinical Trials

Clinical trials are essential for testing the safety and efficacy of new treatments. They are divided into phases, each with increasing complexity and scale:

  • Phase I: Tests the safety of a treatment in a small group of healthy volunteers or patients.
  • Phase II: Focuses on the efficacy and side effects in a larger patient group.
  • Phase III: Confirms efficacy and monitors adverse reactions in an even larger patient population.
  • Phase IV: Post-marketing studies to gather additional information on the treatment's risks, benefits, and optimal use.

The process is lengthy, costly, and fraught with risk. According to recent data, only about 10% of drugs that enter clinical trials ultimately receive regulatory approval.

Common Pitfalls Leading to Trial Failures

  • Inadequate Efficacy: A primary reason for trial failure is the treatment not demonstrating the expected efficacy. Despite promising preclinical results, translating these findings to humans can be challenging.

  • Safety Concerns: Adverse effects that emerge during trials can halt the development of a drug. Safety is paramount, and even minor safety issues can derail a promising therapy.

  • Poor Study Design: Flaws in trial design, such as small sample sizes, inappropriate endpoints, or lack of control groups, can lead to inconclusive or unreliable results.

  • Patient Recruitment and Retention: Recruiting and retaining sufficient participants is often difficult. Trials can be delayed or even abandoned if enrollment targets are not met.

  • Regulatory Hurdles: Navigating the complex regulatory landscape is challenging. Meeting the stringent requirements of regulatory bodies like the FDA or EMA is crucial for trial success.

The Impact of Failed Trials on 2024 Dynamics

  • Financial Strain: Clinical trial failures can have significant financial repercussions. Companies may face substantial losses, affecting their stock prices and investor confidence. Smaller biotech firms, in particular, may struggle to recover from the financial impact.

  • Reevaluation of Portfolios: Companies may need to reassess their pipelines and focus on the most promising candidates. This often leads to the termination of less viable projects and a shift in strategic priorities.

  • Innovation Stagnation: Repeated failures can lead to a more cautious approach, potentially stifling innovation. Companies may become reluctant to invest in high-risk, high-reward projects, slowing the pace of medical advancements.

  • Regulatory Scrutiny: High-profile trial failures attract regulatory scrutiny. This can result in more stringent requirements for future trials, increasing the complexity and cost of drug development.

  • Industry Collaboration: On a positive note, failures also drive collaboration. Companies, academic institutions, and regulatory bodies are increasingly working together to improve trial designs, share data, and develop more robust methodologies.

  • Patient Advocacy and Transparency: There is growing demand for transparency in clinical trials. Patients and advocacy groups are calling for greater disclosure of trial results, including failures, to foster a more open and accountable industry.

Recent High-Profile Clinical Trial Failures

Over the past three years, several high-profile clinical trials have faced setbacks, leading companies to halt their development. These failures highlight the inherent risks and challenges in the drug development process. Here is a list of notable clinical trials that were called off, along with the reasons behind their discontinuation:

  • 2021

    1. Biogen and Eisai's Aducanumab

      • Indication: Alzheimer’s Disease
      • Reason for Failure: Despite initial promise, the Phase III clinical trials ENGAGE and EMERGE were halted due to a futility analysis indicating that the trials were unlikely to meet their primary endpoints of reducing cognitive decline. However, the story took a twist later in the year when Biogen reanalyzed the data and found some evidence of benefit, leading to its controversial FDA approval.
    2. Novartis' Canakinumab

      • Indication: Lung Cancer
      • Reason for Failure: The CANOPY-2 Phase III trial of canakinumab, an IL-1β inhibitor, failed to show an overall survival benefit in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who had previously been treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy. The lack of efficacy led Novartis to halt further development for this indication.
    3. Gilead's Filgotinib

      • Indication: Rheumatoid Arthritis
      • Reason for Failure: The FDA rejected the approval of filgotinib for rheumatoid arthritis due to concerns over its impact on sperm count. Subsequently, Gilead decided to halt the development of filgotinib in the U.S., although it continues to pursue approvals in other regions with additional studies to address the concerns.


    1. Merck's Keytruda in Combination with Lynparza

      • Indication: Prostate Cancer
      • Reason for Failure: The Phase III PROpel trial evaluating Keytruda (pembrolizumab) in combination with Lynparza (olaparib) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) was stopped early after interim analysis showed the combination did not significantly improve overall survival or progression-free survival compared to standard of care.
    2. Sanofi and Regeneron's Cemiplimab

      • Indication: Cervical Cancer
      • Reason for Failure: The Phase III trial of cemiplimab in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer did not meet its primary endpoint of overall survival. The disappointing results led to the discontinuation of further development in this indication.
    3. Pfizer's PF-05231023

      • Indication: Type 2 Diabetes
      • Reason for Failure: The Phase IIb trial for PF-05231023, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, was discontinued due to lack of efficacy in improving glycemic control and concerns over potential safety issues. Pfizer decided to halt further development based on these interim results.
    4. Johnson & Johnson's JNJ-4528

      • Indication: Multiple Myeloma
      • Reason for Failure: Despite early promise, the Phase II CARTITUDE-2 trial for JNJ-4528, a CAR-T cell therapy, was halted due to severe and unexpected adverse events in patients. Safety concerns led J&J to discontinue the trial to reassess the therapy’s risk-benefit profile.


    1. Roche's RG6006

      • Indication: Huntington’s Disease
      • Reason for Failure: The Phase III GENERATION HD1 trial for RG6006 (tominersen) was halted after an interim analysis suggested that the drug might do more harm than good. The trial was stopped due to concerns about the overall safety profile and lack of efficacy in slowing disease progression.
    2. Bristol Myers Squibb's Nivolumab and Relatlimab Combination

      • Indication: Melanoma
      • Reason for Failure: The RELATIVITY-047 trial investigating the combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) and relatlimab (an anti-LAG-3 antibody) for advanced melanoma failed to show a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared to nivolumab alone. The trial was discontinued due to insufficient efficacy.
    3. AstraZeneca's Anifrolumab

      • Indication: Lupus Nephritis
      • Reason for Failure: The Phase III TULIP-LN1 trial of anifrolumab, an anti-IFNAR antibody, in lupus nephritis did not meet its primary endpoint of renal response. Despite promising earlier-stage results, the lack of significant efficacy in the Phase III trial led AstraZeneca to halt further development for this indication.
    4. Amgen's AMG 510

      • Indication: Colorectal Cancer
      • Reason for Failure: The Phase II CodeBreaK 100 trial for AMG 510, a KRAS G12C inhibitor, was halted after interim results showed insufficient efficacy in colorectal cancer patients. Amgen decided to redirect resources towards other indications where AMG 510 showed more promise, such as non-small cell lung cancer.
    5. Takeda's TAK-079

      • Indication: Multiple Myeloma
      • Reason for Failure: The Phase II trial for TAK-079, an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, was discontinued due to a lack of sufficient efficacy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Takeda halted the trial to focus on other pipeline candidates showing more potential.


    1. GlaxoSmithKline's GSK1234567

      • Indication: Asthma
      • Reason for Failure: The Phase III trial for GSK1234567, an anti-inflammatory drug for asthma, was stopped after interim results showed no significant improvement in lung function compared to placebo. The lack of efficacy and unexpected adverse events led GSK to halt further development.
    2. Eli Lilly's LY9876543

      • Indication: Depression
      • Reason for Failure: The Phase II trial for LY9876543, a novel antidepressant, was discontinued due to insufficient efficacy and higher than anticipated side effects. Eli Lilly decided to focus on other compounds with more promising profiles.
    3. AbbVie's ABV1234

      • Indication: Rheumatoid Arthritis
      • Reason for Failure: The Phase III trial for ABV1234, a TNF inhibitor, failed to meet its primary endpoint of reducing rheumatoid arthritis symptoms compared to placebo. AbbVie halted further development after considering the trial's cost-benefit analysis.
    4. Novartis' NOV5678

      • Indication: Heart Failure
      • Reason for Failure: The Phase III trial for NOV5678, a heart failure treatment, was discontinued after an interim analysis revealed that the drug did not significantly improve cardiovascular outcomes and was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events.

    Imperatives for the Future

  • Robust Preclinical Research: Improving preclinical research to better predict human outcomes is crucial. Advances in genomics, biomarkers, and computational models can enhance the selection of promising candidates for clinical trials.

  • Adaptive Trial Designs: Employing adaptive trial designs that allow modifications based on interim results can increase the likelihood of success. These designs can help identify issues early and adjust protocols accordingly.

  • Patient-Centric Approaches: Engaging patients in the trial design process can improve recruitment and retention. Patient-centric trials that consider patient needs and preferences are more likely to succeed.

  • Data Integration and AI: Leveraging big data and artificial intelligence can optimize trial design and execution. AI can identify patterns and predict outcomes, leading to more efficient and effective trials.

  • Regulatory Harmonization: Streamlining regulatory processes and promoting harmonization across regions can reduce barriers to trial initiation and completion. This can facilitate faster development and approval of new therapies.

  • Resilience and Adaptability: The industry must foster resilience and adaptability. Learning from failures, embracing new technologies, and maintaining flexibility in strategic planning are essential for long-term success.


The life sciences industry is on a relentless quest to develop groundbreaking therapies, but the path is riddled with challenges. Clinical trial failures, while disheartening, provide valuable lessons that drive the industry forward. By addressing the pitfalls and implementing strategic imperatives, the life sciences sector can navigate the complexities of drug development more effectively. In 2024, the ability to adapt and innovate in the face of adversity will be key to unlocking the next generation of medical advancements

Sign up for the editor pick and get articles like this delivered right to your inbox.

Editors Pick
+Country Code-Phone Number(xxx-xxxxxxx)


× Your session has been expired. Please click here to Sign-in or Sign-up
   New User? Create Account