Life sciences competitiveness indicators 2017
Source: data.gov.uk (2022-05-13)

Life science sector data. This annual report includes charts on the UK life science sector, and how it compares to other countries. Areas covered include:
UK industry
research and development
regulatory environment
clinical research
In March 2022, metric 3 was amended to “Industry spend on pharmaceutical research and development in the UK”. This edit reflects the inclusion of all spend on pharmaceutical research and development by all businesses, not only pharmaceutical companies.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators
April 2017

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  2 
Ministerial foreword
I am pleased to introduce the third Life Science Competitiveness Indicators. Since the Government launched the last 
Life Sciences Strategy in 2011 the UK has secured over £7.5bn of inward investment in the sector, leading to the creation 
of 18,000 new jobs, and today, the UK has one of the strongest and most productive health and life sciences industries 
in the world.
Now, following the Referendum on leaving the EU, the Government intends to work with all parts of the industry to identify 
new opportunities presented to maintain and strengthen this position.
This report includes a set of metrics against which UK performance relative to other countries may be compared. 
For example: in 2015 UK exports grew for the third year in a row, reaching $36.7bn for pharmaceuticals and increased 6% 
from the previous year. 
Despite many positives for the sector, Government recognises that more can be done. In January 2017, we launched 
the Industrial Strategy Green Paper with a 12 week period of consultation. Through the development of the Life Sciences 
Industrial Strategy we have listened to the ideas of the sector to ensure the UK remains a top tier global hub and the home 
of clinical research and medical innovation. Our ambition remains for the UK to be the best place in the world to develop and 
launch innovative medicines, technologies and diagnostics, for the benefit of patients and boosting growth.  
Lord Prior of Brampton 
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy 

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  3 
Introduction
This Office for Life Sciences (OLS) report brings together a set of competitiveness indicators on the life science environment 
in the UK and how these compare internationally. This is the third report and it is published alongside the other annual OLS 
publication – Strength & Opportunity – which provides detailed analysis of the life science sector in the UK.
The 2016 publication seeks continuity with the 2015 publication and so minimal changes have been made to the individual 
indicators. However, as many of the indicators draws from existing datasets in the public domain, where the underlying data 
series has changed so the indicators in this publication have changed.  Most noticeably, the charts from the 2015 publication 
which covered Life Science academic citations (charts 12A and 12B in 2015) have been withdrawn from the indicator series as 
the underlying data has not been refreshed since 2012. Consequently subsequent indicators within the comparative indicator 
series have been renumbered. In addition, the data series used for science graduates (chart 8) has changed to the percentage 
of graduates from tertiary education graduating from Natural Sciences, Mathematics and Statistics programmes, both sexes 
(%) in line with changes made by UNESCO who compile the series.  
The web links to public sources along with caveats, as appropriate, are provided for each indicator. The specific data for 
these charts and tables can be found in the accompanying spreadsheet. In a few instances, it has been necessary for 
data to be sourced commercially or obtained directly from the organisation holding it. In these cases, the supplier is clearly 
credited against relevant charts. In cases where the data is from a proprietary source, we have not been able to reproduce 
the underlying data tables.
 The choice of indicators was informed by engagement with life science sector stakeholders. We have selected comparator 
countries using their advice. However, in some cases this choice has been limited by data availability. We would like to thank all 
those who have contributed to these indicators, or supplied data for this publication.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  4 
Table of contents
Overview: Performance of UK Life Science Sector and Contribution to UK 
Economy
5
Overview: Competitiveness of UK Life Science Environment
6
Indicators for UK industry
7
Chart 1A: Number of people employed in manufacture 
of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations
8
Chart 1B: Number of people employed in manufacture 
of medical technology products
9
Chart 2: Gross Value Added for pharmaceutical manufacturing
10
Chart 3A: Exports of pharmaceutical products
11
Chart 3B: Exports of medical technology products
12
Chart 4A: Imports of pharmaceutical products
13
Chart 4B: Imports of medical technology products
14
Chart 5A: Life sciences foreign direct investment projects
15
Chart 5B: Life sciences foreign direct investment – capital expenditure
16
Chart 6A: Share of global life science Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) – 2016
17
Chart 6B: Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) in life sciences 
– amount raised in 2016 (where known)
18
Chart 7A: Private equity investment – total investment
19
Chart 7B: Number of companies receiving private equity investment
20
Chart 8: Number of science graduates
21
Research and Development Indicators
22
Chart 9: Government spend on health research and development
23
Chart 10: 2015 non-industry spend on research and development
24
Chart 11: Pharmaceutical industry spend on research 
and development in the UK
25
Regulatory Indicator
26
Chart 12: Instances where MHRA is in lead role in 
EU regulatory procedure
27
Clinical Research Indicators
28
Chart 13: Share of patients recruited to global studies (all trial phases)
29
Chart 14: Time from core package received to first patient enrolled in
country (all trial phases)
30
Demand-side Indicators
31
Chart 15: Dashboard of NICE Technology Appraisal publication
32
Uptake of New Medicines
33
Chart 16A: Uptake of new medicines – NICE approved
34
Chart 16B: Uptake of new medicines – non-NICE approved
35

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  5 
Overview: 
Performance of UK Life Science Sector and 
Contribution to UK Economy
Chart 1B: Number of people employed in manufacture of medical technology products
B
ar gra
ph 1B.
Source Data: Eurostat – Data Explorer, Annual detailed enterprise statistics for industry: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database
Chart 3A: Exports of pharmaceutical products
Bar graph 3A.
Source: UNCTAD STAT Data Center http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx
Chart 5A: Life sciences foreign direct investment projects
Bar graph 5A.
Source: fDi Markets, from The Financial Times Ltd.
Chart 6A: Share of global life science Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) – 2016
Bar graph 6A.
Source: S&P Capital IQ http://www.spcapitaliq.com/

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  6 
Overview: 
Competitiveness of UK Life Science Environment
Chart 7A: Private equity investment – total investment
Bar graph 7A.
Source: Invest Europe http://www.investeurope.eu/research/activity-data/annual-activity-statistics/
Chart 7B: Number of companies receiving private equity investment
B
ar
 g
ra
ph
 7B
.
Source: Invest Europe http://www.investeurope.eu/research/activity-data/annual-activity-statistics/
Chart 8: Percentage of graduates from tertiary education graduating from Natural 
Sciences, Mathematics and Statistics programmes, both sexes (%)
Bar graph 8.
Source: OECD Research & Development statistics http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?r=xx-xxxx-xxxx
Chart 9: Government spend on health research and development
Bar graph 9.
Source: OECD Research & Development statistics http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?r=xx-xxxx-xxxx

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  7 
Indicators for UK industry

Chart 1A: 
Number of people employed in manufacture of basic 
pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations
Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  8 
B
ar gra
ph 1A.
 Compa
ring y
ears 20
11 to 2
015 for
 Germany, F
rance,
 Italy,
 Switze
rland,
 UK, Sp
ain, De
nmark
, Belgium, Pol
and, Hungar
y, Au
stria,
 Sweden 
and the Netherlands.
• U K pharmaceutical employment increased from 
approximately 37,000 to 39,000 between 2014 to 
2015. To note, there is limited data for UK in specific 
years due to unavailability from Eurostat.
• G ermany has continued to have the highest level 
of employment amongst the selected comparator 
countries throughout 2010 to 2015.
• T he Strength & Opportunity (S&O) annual 
publication provides details of UK trends in life 
science sector employment. The S&O report 
includes supply chain companies, which are an 
important part of the sector and are excluded here.
Source: Eurostat – Data Explorer, Annual Detailed Enterprise Statistics for Industry 
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=sbs_na_ind_r2&lang=en  
Notes: Not all years are available for each country.

Chart 1B: 
Number of people employed in manufacture of medical 
technology products
Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  9 
B
ar gra
ph 1B. 
Compari
ng year
s 2011 
to 2015 for Germany, Ital
y, F
ranc
e, U
K, S
witz
erland,
 Poland
, Turkey, Spai
n, and Irel
and.
• Employment in manufacturing  of medical 
technology in the UK fell from approximately 40,200 
to 39,300 between 2014 and 2015.  
• In 2015, the UK had the fourth highest employment 
of the selected comparator countries. To note, there 
is limited data for Turkey, Ireland and France in 
specific years due to unavailability from Eurostat.
• Germany consistently had the highest employment 
among selected comparator countries throughout 
2011 to 2015. 
• The Strength & Opportunity (S&O) annual 
publication provides a more complete and up-
to-date picture of UK trends in life science sector 
employment.
Source: Eurostat – Data Explorer, Annual Detailed Enterprise Statistics for Industry  
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database 
Notes: Med Tech chart is compiled from figures for 266 (Manufacture of irradiation, 
electromedical and electrotherapeutic equipment) + 325 (Manufacture of medical and 
dental instruments and supplies). 

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  10 
Chart 2: 
Gross Value Added for pharmaceutical manufacturing
Chart 2. Comparing years 2011 to 2015 for Ge
rmany, 
Switz
erland, France
, Ire
land, I
taly, Unite
d Kingd
om, Sp
ain, Denmar
k, Belgi
um a
nd t
he N
ethe
rlan
d
s.
• In the UK, the gross value added for pharmaceutical 
manufacturing was broadly flat between 2014 and 
2015 at £9,320m 
• In 2016, the UK had the sixth highest gross value 
added for pharmaceutical manufacturing compared 
to selected competitor countries.
• Germany and Switzerland continue to be two 
European countries with the largest pharmaceutical 
manufacturing sectors
• Most recent data for the UK only shows an increase 
in pharmaceutical GVA of 1.5% on the previous year 
(ONS).
Source: Comparator countries’ data from Eurostat National Accounts data 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/national-accounts/data/database
Notes: Categories used are “541 Medicinal and pharmaceutical products” and 
“542 Medicaments including veterinary medicaments”. Data is in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  11 
Chart 3A: 
Exports of pharmaceutical products
Bar graph 3A. Comparing years 2011 to 2
015 
for 
Germ
any,
 Swi
t
ze
rl
an
d,
 K
or
ea
, 
US
A, Be
lgium
, Unit
ed King
dom, Nether
la
nds, Ir
ela
nd, F
rance, Ital
y and India.
• Between 2011 and 2015, exports of pharmaceutical 
products in the UK grew from $35.9 billion to 
$36.7 billion, a compound annual growth rate of 
approximately 0.6%.
• In 2015, the UK ranked 6th of comparative countries 
in value of pharmaceutical product exports.
• Exports from US, UK, Ireland and India all grew 
between 2014 and 2015.
• Up-to-date UK data, available from ONS, shows a 
17% rise in pharmaceutical exports between 2014 
and 2015 (ONS).
Source: UNCTAD STAT Data Center  
http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx
Notes: Categories used from UNCTAD are “541 Medicinal and pharmaceutical products” 
“542 Medicaments including veterinary medicament”. Data is in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  12 
Chart 3B: 
Exports of medical technology products
B
a
r 
gr
ap
h 
3B
. 
Comparing years 2011 to 2015 for USA, G
erma
ny, 
Neth
erla
nds,
 Mexi
co, Belgium
, 
Japan,
 Irelan
d, Fr
ance, U
K, Swi
tzerland an
d Ita
ly.
• Between 2011 and 2015, exports of medical 
technology products in the UK grew from 
$3.7 billion to $4.1 billion, although most recent 
years show a decline in exports compared to the 
previous year. 
• In 2015, the UK ranked 10th out of the 
12 comparative countries in value of medical 
technology product exports. The UK had a similar 
level of exports to France and Switzerland.
• The US had the highest value of exports in 2015 
with an annual growth rate of approximately 2% 
between 2011 to 2015
Source: UNCTAD STAT Data Center  
http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx
Notes: Categories used from UNCTAD STAT are “774 Electro-diagnostic apparatus for 
medical science etc.” and “872 Instruments and appliances, n.e.s, for medical, etc.”  
Data is in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  13 
Chart 4A: 
Imports of pharmaceutical products
Bar graph 4A. Comparing years 2011 to 2
015 
for 
USA,
 Ger
many
,
 B
el
gi
um
, 
UK
, 
Fr
an
ce,
 Japan
, Ita
ly, S
witzerland, 
the Netherl
ands,
 Chin
a, Spa
in
 and Ca
nada.
• Imports of pharmaceutical products rose in the UK 
from $26.8 billion in 2011 to $34.5 billion in 2015, a 
compound annual growth of approximately 6.5%. 
o In 2015, the UK had the fourth highest value of 
imports of pharmaceutical products after the US, 
Germany and Belgium. 
o The US saw a noticeable 17% growth between 
2014 to 2015.
Source: UNCTAD STAT Data Center  
http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx?sCS_ChosenLang=en 
Notes: Categories used are from UNCTAD “541 Medicinal and pharmaceutical products” 
“542 Medicaments including veterinary medicament”. Data is in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  14 
Chart 4B: 
Imports of medical technology products
B
a
r 
gr
ap
h 
4B
. Comparing years 2011 to 2015 for USA,
 Ger
many
, Ch
ina,
 the
 Nether
lands, Japa
n, Be
lgium
, F
rance,
 UK, It
aly, 
Spain, Swit
zerla
nd and 
Ireland.
• Imports of medical technology products in the UK 
fell slightly in 2015. 
• In 2015, the UK had the eighth highest value of 
imports among selected comparator countries. 
The UK had a similar level of imports to France and 
Belgium. 
• Imports of medical technology products have also 
grown steadily in the US between 2011 and 2015.  
The US consistently had the highest level among 
the selected competitor countries.
Source: UNCTAD STAT Data Center 
http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx?sCS_ChosenLang=en
Notes: Categories used from UNCTAD STAT are “774 Electro-diagnostic apparatus for 
medical science etc.” and “872 Instruments and appliances, n.e.s, for medical, etc.”  
Data is in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  15 
Chart 5A: 
Life sciences foreign direct investment projects
Bar graph 5A. Comparing years 2011 to 2015 f
or U
SA, 
UK, 
Irel
and,
 France, Ge
rmany
, Jap
an, Ita
ly and
 Switze
rl
and.
• The number of life science FDI projects in the UK fell 
from 54 in 2015 to 43 in 2016. 
• In 2016, the UK ranked second in number of FDI 
projects among selected comparator countries.
• The US have consistently ranked first among 
selected comparator countries between 2012 and 
2016, with 131 projects in total.
Source: fDi Markets, from The Financial Times Ltd. 
http://www.fdimarkets.com/explore/?p=sector 
Notes: Numbers are for the year that projects were announced. Data is provided to the 
Office for Life Sciences, by UK Trade & Investment for the purposes of the Competitiveness 
Indicators publication.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  16 
Chart 5B: 
Life sciences foreign direct investment –  
capital expenditure
Bar graph 5B. Compar
ing 
year
s 20
12 t
o 20
1
6 f
or US
A, Ir
eland
, Swi
tzerl
and, 
Germa
ny, F
ra
nce, U
K, Ital
y and Japan
.
• There has been an upward growth in life science 
foreign direct investment capital expenditure in the 
UK between 2011 and 2016, although investments 
can fluctuate markedly from year to year.  
• In 2016, the UK ranked 6th in capital expenditure 
among selected comparator countries.
• The US life sciences foreign direct investment 
capital expenditure almost doubled from 2012 to 
2016
Source: fDi Markets, from The Financial Times Ltd. 
http://www.fdimarkets.com/explore/?p=sector 
Notes: Numbers are for the year that projects were announced. Data is provided to the 
Office for Life Sciences, by UK Trade & Investment for the purposes of the Competitiveness 
Indicators publication.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  17 
Chart 6A: 
Share of global life science Initial Public Offerings  
(IPOs) – 2016
China inc China Hong Kong 33%
USA inc Pink Sheets 23%
Australia 10%
Republic of Korea 8%
Sweden 6%
India 5%
UK 4%
Japan 3%
Vietnam 2%
Other 6%
• In 2016, the UK had a 4% share of global life science 
Initial Public Offerings (IPOs).   
• The UK’s share of global life science IPOs in 2016 
was similar to India and Japan.
• China (including Hong Kong) had the largest global 
share of life science IPOS in 2016 with 33%.
• The UK’s share of global life science IPOs rose in 
2016 from 3% in 2015 [2016 LSCI Report: page 17].
Source: S&P Capital IQ http://www.spcapitaliq.com/ 
Notes: Numbers refer to the country in which the IPO was launched, not the domicile of 
the IPO country. ‘Others’ are Belgium, Japan, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Ireland, 
New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, and Canada.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  18 
Chart 6B: 
Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) in life sciences –  
amount raised in 2016 (where known)
Bar graph 6B. Comparing China, Korea, US
A, Austra
lia, Indo
nesia, Poland, Swed
en
, Bangladesh, Can
ada, France, Japan,
 
In
di
a,
 W
est Afri
ca, Vie
tnam and Ma
laysi
a.
• Approximately £1,557 million was raised in UK 
Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) in life sciences in 2016, 
compared to approximately £107.1 million raised in 
2015.
• In 2016, the UK ranked third among selected 
comparator countries.
• China (including Hong Kong) raised the largest 
amount of IPOs in life sciences in 2016, with 
approximately £2,549 million raised.
Source: S&P Capital IQ http://www.spcapitaliq.com/
Notes: Numbers refer to the country in which the IPO was launched, not the domicile of 
the IPO country. 

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  19 
Chart 7A: 
Private equity investment – total investment
Bar graph 7A. Comparing years 2011 to 2015 for Germany, Fr
ance
, UK
, Sp
ain,
 Swi
t
zer
lan
d, 
Ita
ly 
and
 Ir
ela
nd.
• The amount of private equity investment in the UK 
fell from approximately €0.8 billion to approximately 
€0.72 billion between 2014 and 2015.
• In 2015, the UK ranked third in this investment 
among selected comparator countries.
• Germany experienced significant growth between 
2014 and 2015. 
Source: Invest Europe  
http://www.investeurope.eu/research/activity-data/annual-activity-statistics/
Notes: Data is based on country of portfolio company. Data is in current prices.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  20 
Chart 7B: 
Number of companies receiving private equity investment
B
ar
 g
ra
ph
 7B
. C
omp
ari
ng 
yea
rs 2011 to 2015 for
 G
ermany, Fra
nce, U
K, Swit
zerlan
d, S
pain
, Ir
elan
d an
d Italy
.
• The number of companies receiving private equity 
investment in the UK fell from 118 in 2011 to 71 in 
2015.  
• In 2015, the UK had the third highest number of 
companies receiving private equity investment 
among selected comparator countries.
• In 2015, Germany had the highest number of 
companies, despite seeing a decline from 194 in 
2011 to 187 in 2015.  
Source: Invest Europe  
http://www.investeurope.eu/research/activity-data/annual-activity-statistics/ 
Notes: Data is based on country of portfolio company. Data is in current prices. 

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  21 
Chart 8:  
Percentage of graduates from tertiary education graduating from 
Natural Sciences, Mathematics and Statistics programmes, both sexes (%)
Bar graph 8. Comparing 
year
s 20
10 t
o 20
14 f
o
r
 
U
K
, 
Ge
rm
any, Italy,
 Irelan
d, Fran
ce, S
wit
zerland , U
SA, Sp
ain, Sw
eden,
 Belgiu
m and Netherlands.
• The latest figures from the UK continue to show the 
high proportion of students graduating in sciences 
and mathematical subjects. In 2014, this was 13% 
of all graduates.
• This is twice the reported proportion of science 
graduates in the US, although, the larger population 
pool in the US means it continues to have the 
largest overall volume of science graduates
• Germany also had a high proportion of science and 
mathematics graduates (105) in 2014. The UNECO 
data series only has one year of data for Germany.
Notes: The data time series, within the “education” theme, produced by UNESCO have changed.  
Previously, this Life Sciences Competitiveness Indicator set has reproduced the “Science 
graduates from tertiary education, both sexes (number)” series.  As this is now longer available 
we have switched to including “Percentage of graduates from tertiary education graduating 
from Natural Sciences, Mathematics and Statistics programmes, both sexes (%)”.  This has the 
advantage of standardising for population size, but gives limited insight on the size of the pool of 
appropriately qualified graduates.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  22 
Research and Development Indicators

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  23 
Chart 9:  
Government spend on health research and development
Bar graph 9. Comparing years 2011 to 
2015
 for
 US,
 UK,
 Ger
m
a
n
y
,
 F
ra
nc
e, Spai
n, Ja
pan, 
Italy 
and Bel
gi
um
.
• The most recent data for the UK in the OECD series 
is for 2014.  The UK maintained its position as 
country with the second highest level of expenditure 
on health R&D behind the US.
• Expenditure in most countries has been flat of falling 
over the last 5 years.  In the UK, expenditure was 
$3bn in 2014, approximately the same level as in 
2013.
• Expenditure in the US remained at an order 
of magnitude of 10 larger than expenditure in 
comparator countries
Source: OECD Research & Development statistics 
http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?r=xx-xxxx-xxxx
Notes: OECD, has rebased the data used in their series on Government R&D spend from 
US dollars 2005 to US dollars 2010 at constant prices. 

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  24 
Chart 10:  
2015 non-industry spend on research and development
AMRC member charities – £1,443m
Medical Research Council – £772m
National Institute for 
Health Research – £1,034m
• In 2015:
– 44% of UK non-industry spend on R&D was by 
AMRC member charities
– 24% of UK non-industry spend on R&D was by 
the Medical Research Council
–	 32% of UK non-industry spend on R&D was by 
the National Institute for Health Research.
• In 2014:
– 41% of UK non-industry spend on R&D was by 
AMRC member charities
– 27% of UK non-industry spend on R&D was by 
the Medical Research Council
–	 32% of UK non-industry spend on R&D was by 
the National Institute for Health Research.
• Expenditure by AMRC member charities increased 
from £1,286m in 2014 to £1,443m in 2015.
Source: AMRC Annual Review 2014-15, spend by health departments in Scotland, Wales 
and Northern Ireland not illustrated http://www.amrc.org.uk/publications
Notes: The data here is reproduced from the Association of  Medical Research Charities 
website.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  25 
Chart 11:  
Pharmaceutical industry spend on research and 
development in the UK
Graph. Showing fluctuations in sp
e
n
d
i
n
g
 fro
m 20
03 t
o 20
15.
• Between 2003 and 2011, there was steady growth 
in pharmaceutical industry spend on R&D in the UK 
followed by a decline from a peak of £4.9bn in 2011 
to £3.8bn in 2014.
• 2015, saw a recovery with expenditure of £4.2bn, 
representing growth of 8% over the previous year.
• Internationally comparable data on pharmaceutical 
industry spend on R&D is not available, so only UK 
data is presented here.
Source: ONS BERD survey 2015, table 2, current prices http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/
publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-386019
Notes: Data is not available for medical technology industry spend.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  26 
Regulatory Indicator

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  27 
Chart 12:  
Instances where MHRA is in lead role in  
EU regulatory procedure
Bar 
grap
h 12
. Co
mpar
ing 
year
s 20
08 t
o
 20
16.
• The MHRA is a leading regulator of choice for 
scientific advice and centralised procedures.
• In 2016, the MHRA was: 
– Rapporteur/Co-rapporteur in 15.4% of 
Centralised Procedures; 
– Scientific Advice Co-ordinator in 21% of cases; 
and 
– Reference Member State in 45% of 
Decentralised Procedures involving the UK.
Source: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency 
Notes: The chart illustrates the proportion of work the UK has undertaken in three key areas of 
European regulatory activity.  As the work of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory 
Agency (MHRA) within the areas covered by these indicators is collaborative, no direct comparison 
with the other 27 Member States is made and the UK’s position in the leading role is shown as a 
percentage of all work undertaken.
Each new medicine product seeking approval in Europe through the Centralised Procedure has 
a Rapporteur and a co-Rapporteur appointed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to lead 
the assessment process. The Decentralised Procedure requires the applicant company to select a 
Reference Member State (RMS) to lead the assessment of the medicine during the procedure.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  28 
Clinical Research Indicators

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  29 
Chart 13:  
Share of patients recruited to global studies  
(all trial phases)
Bar graph 13. Comparing years 2010 t
o 
20
14 
for
 Cz
ech
 Re
pub
lic
, F
ran
ce
, Germ
any, Po
land, 
UK and USA.
• The share of patients recruited to global studies in 
the UK rose from 1.6% in 2010 to 2.7% in 2014. 
• Over the last few years, the UK has been working to 
increase opportunities for patient participation in life 
sciences industry studies. 
• This is now making significant impact, with recent 
data from the National Institute for Health Research 
(NIHR) showing that the number of participants 
recruited to commercial contract studies increased 
from 13,987 in 2010/11 to 34,339 in 2015/16, with 
the support of the NIHR Clinical Research Network 
(NIHR). 
• In addition, the UK has increased its share of 
European trials, with the UK being represented in 
29% of total EU trials in 2016, based on data from 
the EudraCT database (MHRA and EudraCT). 
Source: This material is reproduced under a licence from CMR International.
Notes: You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or part without the written 
consent of CMR International.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  30 
Chart 14: 
Time from core package received to first patient enrolled 
in country (all trial phases)
Bar 
g
ra
ph 
14.
 Co
mpa
rin
g y
ea
rs 201
0 to 20
14 for
 Czech Republi
c, F
ranc
e, G
erma
ny, Poland, UK and USA.
• In 2014, time from core package received to first 
patient enrolled in the UK was around 35 days 
below the peak in 2011. 
• The UK has put into place several initiatives to 
reduce start up times for studies with the life 
sciences industry: 
–	 NHS organisations are nationally benchmarked 
for study set up times and first participant 
recruitment.  
–	 Use of standardised model Clinical Trial 
Agreements and Costing Templates are 
supporting rapid negotiations around site setup. 
–	 Specific resources have been embedded in 
the NHS to improve set up times and ensure 
consistent study delivery. 
• This is now making significant impact. Data from 
the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) 
shows that the proportion of NHS sites set up within 
40 days increased from 24% in 2011/12 to 79% 
in 2015/16 with the support of the NIHR Clinical 
Research Network.
• Since 2012/13, 74 studies have achieved 
recruitment of the first global patient in the UK, 
demonstrating that the UK is globally competitive 
in the set up and rapid recruitment of participants 
(NIHR).
Source: This material is reproduced under a licence from CMR International.
Notes: You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or part without the written 
consent of CMR International.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  31 
Demand-side Indicators

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  32 
Chart 15:  
Dashboard of NICE Technology Appraisal publication
Notes: 
MA: Marketing Authorisation
ACD: Appraisal Consultation 
Document
FAD: Final Appraisal Determination
Dials address forecast and actual 
timeframes for different stages of the 
NICE Technology Appraisal process. 
Full details of the process, including 
descriptions of the separate stages 
can be found on the NICE website 
http://www.nice.org.uk/About/
What-we-do/Our-Programmes/
NICE-guidance/NICE-technology-
appraisal-guidance
Red and Green zones on dials relate 
to whether milestones have been 
attained within existing targets for 
NICE performance.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  33 
Uptake of new medicines
• The next two charts show the UK uptake per capita of new medicines compared to a group
of comparator countries.
• UK uptake per capita is compared to the average uptake per capita of a group of European
and non-European countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany,
Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, USA.
• Chart A shows the per capita uptake of 41 new medicines first marketed in the UK between
2011 and 2015 and recommended (or optimised) by NICE for routine funding in the NHS.
• Chart B shows the per capita uptake of 38 medicines first marketed in the UK between 2011
and 2015 and not referred to NICE. Medicines appraised but not recommended by NICE are
not included in the analysis.
• The analysis adjusts for population size, but it does not adjust for other important factors
which might drive the level of use, such as the number of patients with relevant clinical
conditions for each treatments and standard clinical practice at the country level.
• The analysis does not take into account different levels of expenditure on medicines in each
country, which is likely to affect uptake.
• Therefore any comparisons and conclusions on the evolution of the uptake of new medicines
must be performed with extreme caution.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  34 
Chart 16A:  
Uptake of new medicines – NICE approved
Ch
art 
16a.
 Det
ail 
in text.
Source: Office of Health Economics analysis based on IMS data.
• Chart 16A shows the relative uptake per capita in the 
UK compared to a selection of other European and 
non-European countries for a selection of medicines first 
marketed between 2011 and 2015 and recommended by 
NICE for routine funding in the NHS.
• Vertical lines refer to the percentages shown on the y-axis 
and indicate the relative uptake per capita (UK versus other 
countries) of the individual medicines over a Moving Annual 
Total (MAT) period of 12 months. The first date of marketing 
in a country will fall within the first MAT period. The relative 
uptake figures compare the sales per capita for the UK to 
the other countries included in the analysis.
• The percentages displayed on the graph represent the 
median relative uptake per capita in the UK compared with 
the other countries for all products included in the analysis.
• A value of 100% means UK per capita consumption 
is identical to the average uptake per capita for the 
comparison countries during the MAT time window (a 
percentage higher than 100% indicates that the relative 
uptake per capita was higher in the UK and a percentage 
lower than 100% indicates that the uptake was lower in 
the UK). For example in the 3rd year of launch the median 
usage of medicines per capita in the UK represented 
77.5% of the usage in the comparator countries.
• Medicines launched in 2015 will appear in ‘MAT1’ group, 
those marketed (corresponding to the first sale made) in 
2014 will appear in ‘MAT1’ and ‘MAT2’, etc. The newest 
medicines will therefore not yet appear in ‘MAT5’. 
• The results are specific to the medicines included in the 
analysis and caution should be exercised when comparing 
to previous analyses because of the different mix of 
medicines.

Life Science Competitiveness Indicators  35 
Chart 16B:  
Uptake of new medicines – non-NICE reviewed
Ch
art 
16b.
 Det
ail 
in text.
Source: Office of Health Economics analysis based on IMS data.
• Chart 16B shows the relative uptake per capita in the 
UK compared to a selection of other European and 
non-European countries for a selection of medicines first 
marketed between 2011 and 2015 but not referred to NICE. 
Medicines rejected by NICE are not included in the analysis.
• Vertical lines refer to the percentages shown on the y-axis 
and indicate the relative uptake per capita (UK versus other 
countries) of the individual medicines over a Moving Annual 
Total (MAT) period of 12 months. The first date of marketing 
in a country will fall within the first MAT period. The relative 
uptake figures compare the sales per capita for the UK to 
the other countries included in the analysis.
• The percentages displayed on the graph represent the 
median relative uptake per capita in the UK compared with 
the other countries for all products included in the analysis.
• A value of 100% means UK per capita consumption 
is identical to the average uptake per capita for the 
comparison countries during the MAT time window 
relevant to the comparison (a percentage higher than 100% 
indicates that the relative uptake per capita was higher in 
the UK and a percentage lower than 100% indicates that 
the uptake was lower in the UK). For example in the 3rd 
year of launch the median usage of medicines per capita in 
the UK represented 67.3% of the usage in the comparator 
countries.
• Medicines launched in 2015 will appear in ‘MAT1’ group, 
those marketed (corresponding to the first sale made) in 
2014 will appear in ‘MAT1’ and ‘MAT2’, etc. The newest 
medicines will therefore not yet appear in ‘MAT5’
• The results are specific to the medicines included in the 
analysis and caution should be exercised when comparing 
to previous analyses because of the different mix of 
medicines.