INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

The Pharma Documentation Ring provides a forum for members to exchange experience and cooperate on projects of common interest, as well as serving as a platform for the information industry to gauge the views and attitudes of its industrial customers.

Overview of Activities of the PDR

ed to rationalize their efforts by joint- To help tackle the volume of sci- by Y. Dubosc ly abstracting and coding the scientif- entific literature in the biomedical area and A. Mullen ic literature and patents7 on account of in a systematic way, the five PDR the rapid growth of published materi- companies, besides generating and als. This latter development is depict- exchanging top-quality abstracts, also developed Ringcode,9 which com- THE PHARMA DOCUMENTATION RING ed in Figure 1. (PDR) is an international corporate- bines structural fragmentation codes based organization that focuses on and a system for biomedical concepts, The rapid growth in the amount of initially designed for punched cards activities involving scientific informa- available information over the last few tion and documentation for the phar- that were exchanged among the mem- years has been aptly described by the maceutical industry.1–5 ber companies. This system was in term “information explosion.” For fact one of the first “mechanized” doc- The PDR has several main objec- example, in the 19th century it took umentation tools. tives, such as the exchange of experi- 100 years for the total amount of infor- ence and views among members and mation to double. Since approximate- Due to the efficiency of this the initiation of the development of ly 1960, on the other hand, informa- approach, a number of other pharma- new information services, as well as tion has been doubling every 4–6 ceutical companies joined the PDR, as the enhancement of the performan- years. can be appreciated from Figure 2, ce of existing commercial information which traces the steady increase in 5,6 growth of the organization from its systems for the mutual benefit of The number of records in online the R&D-based pharmaceutical indus- inauguration in 1958. and other databases has increased try. 8 100% every 4 years since 1983. In However, as the dramatic expan- A brief history addition, between 1987 and 1991, the sion of the biomedical literature dur- The PDR was founded in 1958 by number of online searches conducted ing the 1960s was not paralleled by the five companies—Bayer, Ciba, Knoll, via the most important U.S. host com- same increase in manpower of infor- E. Merck and Thomae—, who decid- puters doubled to 40 million per year.8 mation departments, PDR companies

DN&P 7(9), November 1994 551 were prompted to look for a commer- cial organization able to take over their tasks. For this reason, in 1964 the sci- entific literature component of docu- mentation activities was transferred to Derwent Publications, London, which had launched a punched card-based documentation system for pharmaceu- tical patents in 1963. The new com- mercial documentation service for bio- medical literature was called Ringdoc (now known as Derwent Drug File) and combined PDR’s Ringcode with the “Codeless Scanning System” of Hoffmann-La Roche/Sandoz.

PDR companies continued to process the coding of patents in the pharmaceutical and agricultural areas using Ringcode, because the quality of the alternative commercial coding sys- tems was judged inadequate. For this reason, during the 1960s other phar- maceutical companies joined the PDR: Boehringer Mannheim, Diamant (now Roussel Uclaf), Duphar, Gruenenthal, Fig. 1. Growth of information. Rhône-Poulenc, Roussel Uclaf, Sche- ring and Troponwerke (now Bayer).

In 1968, the PDR companies expressed the need for better access to chemical reaction documentation. A reaction-coding system based on Ringcode was established10,11 and it was initially decided to code Theil- heimer’s Synthetic Methods of Or- ganic Chemistry series using this tech- nique. Similar considerations to those involving the biomedical literature caused the system to be transferred to Derwent Publications in 1974, togeth- er with the reaction coding of Volumes 1–25 of Theilheimer. The new com- mercial service was called Chemical Reactions Documentation Service (CRDS).

During the 1970s, the PDR contin- ued to grow smoothly with, for exam- ple BASF, Byk Gulden, Chemie Werk Homburg (now Asta Medica) and Wellcome joining. During these years, the PDR in fact continued to study12 and process pharmaceutical and agri- cultural patents using its Ringcode and to evaluate ways for the computerized coding of Markush formulae.13–15 Fig. 2. Milestones of the PDR. However, this work was more and

552 DN&P 7(9), November 1994 more challenged, due to the increasing lines,” as well as to redefine the aims, mon work and meetings, as well as by quality of the coding of patents by membership conditions, organization closely cooperating with information Derwent Publications and the advent and activities of the PDR. suppliers. of the online age in Europe, encom- passing enhanced retrieval features, The aim of the PDR is to attain Membership such as, for example, the combination improved access and coverage and to PDR members represent scientific of manual and punched codes in the achieve better distribution and opti- information and documentation Derwent patent file. In 1978, it was mum use of the chemical, biomedical, departments of R&D-based pharma- decided to discontinue the recoding of pharmaceutical, scientific and patent ceutical firms and chemical companies patents. literature for the common benefit: involved in medicinal chemistry. The progressive decrease in coding l by promoting the exchange of expe- Conditions of PDR membership activities inside the PDR meant that rience and ideas among members in At this juncture, it would perhaps the organization went through a reori- non-confidential areas of work; be opportune to briefly outline the entation phase. Energies were released l by jointly studying and assessing conditions attached to membership in for activities related to improving existing commercial and non-com- the PDR (Fig. 3). Members vote on existing commercial information mercial products and services for the tools: the PDR’s Medical–Biological any new application for membership. purpose of improvement; Committee, in particular, met regular- ly during this period and helped cat- l by initiating and encouraging the Normally, a corporate group is rep- alyze and pioneer many improvements development of new information ser- resented by a single membership in the in the Derwent literature databases. vices tailored to the needs of the PDR, affiliated and subsidiary compa- pharmaceutical industry; and nies of a particular group being cov-

After the PDR relinquished its l by providing a forum for the infor- ered by this membership. Exceptions activities as a database producer and mation industry operating in the to this general rule have been made in developer of indexing systems, during pharmaceutical sector. the past when existing member com- the 1980s a new focal point was found panies became a part of a larger cor- for the organization: that of exchang- The association achieves its aims porate group which, for example, sub- ing experience and intensively testing through its own efforts and by com- sequently became a PDR member. commercial systems and databases of interest to the R&D-based pharmaceu- tical industry. As a result, there was a steady growth in membership of the PDR, which began to surge from 1990 onwards to the present 30 member companies.

In its new role, the PDR provides an international platform to discuss and propose improvements for data- bases in the pharmaceutical area. Re- cently, presentations were made and joint papers published on the follow- ing topics: drug information files on development compounds,16 biomed- ical databases17–19 and reaction files.20

Guidelines and aims The PDR was a registered associa- tion in Germany from 1958 to 1984. As such, it was governed by statutes that defined objectives and activities. From 1984, although the status of being a registered association was dis- solved to simplify administration, the core part of the original statutes con- tinued to be considered valid. It was, however, recently decided to update and replace them with new “guide- Fig. 3. PDR membership conditions.

DN&P 7(9), November 1994 553 Membership fees are not exacted. Members must, however, commit to make a positive contribution to the work of the PDR by actively participat- ing in meetings and working groups.

Overview of current PDR members The present 30 member companies of the PDR are depicted in Figure 4. PDR companies represent more than 50% of the top 30 pharmaceutical companies worldwide, based either on R&D expenditure or turnover. It is estimated that those R&D-intensive PDR companies invested on average 16% of their pharmaceutical turnover in R&D in 1992 (source: IPS, Wood-Mackenzie, 1993).

Another survey,21 conducted by the Dutch ABN-AMRO Bank, showed that in 1991 some 18 of the top 20 European-based pharmaceutical com- panies by R&D expenditure were PDR members.

A recent study22 based on the New Chemical Entities (NCEs) introduced Fig. 4. Present corporate members of the PDR. by the leading 25 international phar- maceutical companies during the peri- od 1961–1990 indicated that PDR member organizations had more than a 60% share of the 961 NCEs listed.

Thus, PDR members represent organizations that account for a major sector of the international pharmaceu- tical R&D community.

The R&D headquarters of Euro- pean-based PDR companies as well as the European sites of major U.S. phar- maceutical PDR companies are spread over the following eight countries (in parentheses the number of members) (Fig. 5):

l Denmark (1);

l France (3);

l Germany (11);

l The Netherlands (2);

l Norway (1);

l Sweden (2);

l Switzerland (2); and

l United Kingdom (8).

Organization and present activities The main organs of the association Fig. 5. Locations of PDR member companies. are the meeting of the members, the

554 DN&P 7(9), November 1994 PDR Executive Board and the PDR TABLE I: PDR BOARD 1984–1994 coordinators. YEAR PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT SECRETARY TREASURER 1984 van Putte Peperkamp Pickering Geiger Meeting of PDR members (Organon) (Duphar) (Wellcome) (Byk Gulden) The meeting of members is respon- 1985 van Putte Spahn Peperkamp a sible for: (Organon) (Boehringer Ingelheim) (Duphar) 1986 van Putte Geiger Peperkamp (Organon) (Byk Gulden) (Duphar) l election and discharge of the mem- 1987 van Putte Mlodzik Peperkamp bers of the PDR Executive Board; (Organon) (Ciba-Geigy) (Duphar) l resolutions over the admission of 1988 Mlodzik Peperkamp Rein new members; (Ciba-Geigy) (Duphar) (BASF) 1989 Mlodzik Mullen Rein l setting up resolutions concerning: 1) (Ciba-Geigy) (Bayer) (BASF) topics for study and coordination, 2) 1990 Mlodzik Mullen Dubosc products and services to be assessed, (Ciba-Geigy) (Bayer) (Rhône-Poulenc Rorer) 3) information fields that need 1991 Mlodzik Mullen Dubosc improved tools, 4) contacts for spe- (Ciba-Geigy) (Bayer) (Rhône-Poulenc Rorer) 1992 Mullen Mlodzik Dubosc cific activities with database produc- (Bayer) (Ciba-Geigy) (Rhône-Poulenc Rorer) ers and/or information suppliers, and 1993 Mullen Mlodzik Dubosc 5) contacts with other national or (Bayer) (Ciba-Geigy) (Rhône-Poulenc Rorer) international information-related 1994 Mullen Dubosc Otto (Bayer) (Rhône-Poulenc Rorer) (Boehringer Ingelheim) organizations; aOffice discontinued in 1985. l general distribution of tasks to the members, whereby the final details are settled by the PDR Executive well as the office holders over the last l a main session that is generally Board; and decade are compiled in Table I. devoted to a specific, current topic at l setting up the list of topics of impor- the cutting edge of information tech- tance to the association and delega- Tasks of coordinators nology. This core session is orga- tion of the responsibility for moni- PDR coordinators are responsible nized by the corresponding coordi- toring these topics to coordinators. for monitoring their topics in the fol- nators, and a limited number of lowing manner: external speakers are invited to par- The major event of the PDR calen- ticipate. During the past few years, dar is the Annual General Meeting l by informing members about new special topics were: 1) Drug (AGM) of members, which is orga- and important developments and Information Files on Development nized by each company on a rota basis, trends; Compounds (1990), 2) Pharmaceu- and lasts 2–3 days. l by canvassing the views of mem- tical Patent Files and Associated bers; Information Services (1991), 3) CD- PDR Executive Board by initiating, if necessary, the study ROM Files and Their Alternatives The PDR Executive Board l and assessment of products and ser- (1992), and 4) three core topics: consists of the President, Vice vices; Copyright and Document Delivery, President and the Secretary. It is elect- Drug Information Files on Devel- by presenting detailed reports at the ed by the meeting of the members for l opment Compounds, and Economic meeting of members; and a period of 2 years. Its work is hon- and Commercial Data (1993). orary and consists of: l by arranging, when necessary, spe- cial meetings. l a presentation by each coordinator summing up the main events over the the management of the association; l Main activities previous year in his or her field of the representation of the association l The main activities of the PDR are activity; and before third parties; focused on the Annual General l the internal topics of the PDR, which l he execution of the resolutions Meeting of members and special sub- include administrative and organiza- passed by the meeting of members; ject meetings throughout the year. The tional matters as well as contacts l the organization of the Annual Annual General Meeting (AGM) of with other organizations. General Meeting of members and, the PDR has the following main fea- whenever necessary, supplementary tures: The topics currently monitored by meetings. the PDR coordinators are shown in

l a company report session describing Table II. The high quality of the eval- The current PDR Executive Board major new developments in non- uation work carried out by the PDR members for the period 1994–1995 as confidential areas; coordinators over the last few years

DN&P 7(9), November 1994 555 TABLE II: TOPICS CURRENTLY MONITORED BY THE PDR COORDINATORS 5. Archer, A., Mullen, A. and Pickering, W.R. The pharmaceutical industry. In: TOPIC COORDINATING COMPANIES Information Sources in Chemistry. R.T. Biotechnology Boehringer Mannheim Bottle and J.F.B. Rowland (Eds.), CD-ROM databases Knoll/Pharmacia Bowker-Saur, London, 1993, 251–78. Company drug papers Fisons 6. Mullen, A. Chemical and physicochemical information. In: Information Sources in Copyright and document delivery Wellcome/Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. W.R. Pickering (Ed.), Document management and archiving E. Merck/Boehringer Ingelheim Bowker-Saur, London, 1990, 11–52. Drug information systems on development Bayer/Schering 7. Scheublein, M., Steidle, W., Germann, W., products Nübling, W. and Whilhelmi, R. Economic and commercial data Glaxo Computerized literature documentation in Future technologies Boehringer Mannheim the pharmaceutical industry. Naturwissen- Information management Sandoz chaften 1968, 55: 362–7. Internal R&D data Asta Medica 8. Maraccio, K.J. Gale Directory of Databases, Library affairs Gruenenthal/SmithKline Beecham Vol. 2. Gale Research Inc., Detroit, 1993. Adonis Thomae 9. Nübling, W. and Steidle, W. Documentation Literature services Ring of the chemical/pharmaceutical indus- Biomedical Byk Gulden/Syntex try—aims and methods. Angew Chem Int Chemical BASF Ed 1970, 9: 596–8. Patents Rhône-Poulenc Rorer/Roussel Uclaf 10. Schier, O., Nübling, W., Steidle, W. and PDR news Organon/Sanofi Valls, J. System for the documentation of Reaction systems Pfizer chemical reactions. Angew Chem Int Ed 1970, 9: 599–604. 11. Bork, K.H. Documentation of chemical has contributed to the noticeably high- new services or the enhancement of reactions according to the Pharma Dokumentationsring e.V. system. Chem Z er profile of the PDR within the infor- existing ones. The response to surveys 1972, 96: 330–4. mation industry. among PDR companies partly at the 12. Bork, K.H. Report of the Derwent 1971 request of information suppliers is Autumn Meeting 1971, 37. Some examples of topics of special generally very close to, if not, 100%. 13. Deforeit, H., Caric, A., Combe, H., Leveque, S., Malka, A. and Valls, J. CORA, meetings arranged by the PDR coordi- semiautomatic coding system—application nators over the last few years are: The impact of the PDR on the to the coding of Markush formulas. J Chem information scene depends to a very Doc 1972, 12: 230–3. large extent not on previous laurels 14. Fitting, J., Lehna, H., Riege, G. and Specht, l Adonis (organized by Thomae); and achievements, but on the present K. Semiautomatic coding of steroid biotechnology (organized by Markush formulas. J Chem Doc 1974, 14: l and future activities of the organiza- Boehringer Mannheim); 74–5. tion. The PDR’s ongoing objectives 15. Fitting, J., Lehna, H. and Specht, K. l company drug papers (organized by are to maintain or, if feasible, even Plausability check of chemical coding using Organon); raise current standards, as well as to a modified Derwent Robins program. J Chem Doc 1974, 14: 76–9. l electronic document delivery sys- establish even closer links to informa- 16. Mullen, A., Blunck, M., Busch, T. and tems (organized by Wellcome); tion suppliers and producers in a part- Möller, E. Report of the Literature Annual l internal R&D Data (organized by ner-like manner. Meeting (Derwent), Glasgow, 1990, 45–9. Asta Medica); and 17. van Putte, N.W. Report of the Literature Acknowledgment Annual Meeting (Derwent), Bournemouth, l text retrieval software (organized by We would like to thank Mrs. H. Mlodzik 1991, 27–39. Wellcome). (Ciba-Geigy) and Drs. N. van Putte (Organon) 18. Geiger, B. Report of the Literature Annual and Dr. K. Specht (Schering AG)—all former Meeting (Derwent), Nottingham, 1992, Recent publications produced by PDR presidents—for their critical appraisal and 57–74. 19. van Putte, N. A comparison of four biomed- coordinators were, for example, a useful suggestions on the draft version of this paper. ical databases for the retrieval of drug liter- comparison of biomedical databas- ature. Health Inf Lib 1991, 3: 119–27. es17,19 in 1991 and a comparison of 20. Gueunier, C., Bijl, W., de Jong, A., Mernke, References reaction systems20 and drug informa- E., Dubosc, Y. and Jean, F. Report of the 1. van Putte, N. III Convegno dei documental- Literature Annual Meeting (Derwent), 2,4 tion files on development products isti dell’industria farmaceutica degli institu- Nottingham, 1992, 115–37. in 1992. ti di ricerca biomedica atti Abano Terme, 21. ABN-AMRO Bank, The Netherlands, Scrip 1985, 50–2. 1992, 1743: 8. 2. Mullen, A. Report of the Literature Annual 22. Scrip Yearbook 1994, PJB Publications Ltd., Conclusion Meeting (Derwent), Nottingham, 1992, Richmond, 1994, 108. This overview has attempted to 41–56. give a brief impression of the wide 3. Burcham, S. Ringdoc from Derwent and not Y. Dubosc is PDR Vice President, c/o range of activities as well as the hard patents. Database 1992, 6: 58–63. 4. Mullen, A. Information transfer: New age— Rhône-Poulenc Rorer, Centre de work undertaken by PDR members. new ways. 3rd Eur Conf Med Lib, (Sept Recherche de Vitry-Alfortville, F- We would like to think that the PDR is 23–26, Montpellier) 1992. In: Proceedings 94403 Vitry-sur-Seine, France and A. a serious partner for database produc- of the Third European Conference of Medical Libraries. S. Bakker and M.C. Mullen, Ph.D., is PDR President, c/o ers and information suppliers, particu- Cleland (Eds.), Kluwer Academic Bayer AG, Pharma Research Center, larly with regard to the introduction of Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, 1993, 343–6. D-42096 Wuppertal, Germany.

556 DN&P 7(9), November 1994