Analysis | Published:

Drug discovery effectiveness from the standpoint of therapeutic mechanisms and indications

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery volume 17, pages 1933 (2018) | Download Citation

  • A Corrigendum to this article was published on 15 December 2017

This article has been updated

Abstract

The productivity of the pharmaceutical industry has been widely discussed in recent years, particularly with regard to concerns that substantial expenditures on research and development have failed to translate into approved drugs. Various analyses of this productivity challenge have focused on aspects such as attrition rates at particular clinical phases or the physicochemical properties of drug candidates, but relatively little attention has been paid to how the industry has performed from the standpoint of the choice of therapeutic mechanisms and their intended indications. This article examines what the pharmaceutical industry has achieved in this respect by analysing comprehensive industry-wide data on the mechanism–indication pairs that have been investigated during the past 20 years. Our findings indicate several points and trends that we hope will be useful in understanding and improving the productivity of the industry, including areas in which the industry has had substantial success or failure and the relative extent of novelty in completed and ongoing projects.

Key points

  • We analysed the past 20 years of drug project history with the aim of understanding more about how the pharmaceutical industry has been performing with regard to therapeutic mechanisms and their intended indications.

  • The analysis suggests that industry output in terms of successful projects in this period has come primarily from a limited set of well-validated therapeutic mechanisms.

  • The analysis highlights inefficiencies in the industry due to continued investment in frequently discontinued therapeutic mechanisms, indicating that the industry could benefit from paying more attention to lessons learned from other projects and avoiding initiating projects for previously studied failed therapeutic mechanisms without rigorous and independent validation.

  • The analysis indicates that the majority of ongoing projects are pursuing novel mechanism–indication pairs, even in the indications with existing therapeutics, which is highly encouraging.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Change history

  • 15 December 2017

    In Figure 3c of this article, the labels for the mechanisms were misplaced. The article has been corrected in the print and online version.

References

  1. 1.

    & Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 711–715 (2004).

  2. 2.

    et al. How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 9, 203–214 (2010).

  3. 3.

    & Lessons learned from candidate drug attrition. IDrugs 13, 869–873 (2010).

  4. 4.

    , , & Trends in risks associated with new drug development: success rates for investigational drugs. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 87, 272–277 (2010).

  5. 5.

    , & The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 428–438 (2011).

  6. 6.

    Trial watch: phase II failures: 2008–2010. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 328–329 (2011).

  7. 7.

    , , & Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 11, 191–200 (2012).

  8. 8.

    , , & Does size matter in R&D productivity? If not, what does? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 12, 901–902 (2013).

  9. 9.

    & Trial watch: phase II and phase III attrition rates 2011–2012. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 12, 569 (2013).

  10. 10.

    , , , & Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 40–51 (2014).

  11. 11.

    , , , & Why is it hard to terminate failing projects in pharmaceutical R&D? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 14, 663–664 (2015).

  12. 12.

    et al. An analysis of the attrition of drug candidates from four major pharmaceutical companies. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 14, 475–486 (2015).

  13. 13.

    , & Trends in clinical success rates. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 15, 379–380 (2016).

  14. 14.

    Phase II and phase III failures: 2013–2015. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 15, 817–818 (2016).

  15. 15.

    Applications of high-throughput ADME in drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 8, 339–345 (2004).

  16. 16.

    Comprehensive assessment of ADMET risks in drug discovery. Curr. Pharm. Des. 15, 2195–2219 (2009).

  17. 17.

    Improving early drug discovery through ADME modelling: an overview. Drugs R D 8, 349–362 (2007).

  18. 18.

    et al. Prediction of human pharmacokinetics using physiologically based modeling: a retrospective analysis of 26 clinically tested drugs. Drug Metab. Dispos. 35, 1766–1780 (2007).

  19. 19.

    , & Modelling and PBPK simulation in drug discovery. AAPS J. 11, 155–166 (2009).

  20. 20.

    et al. Reducing safety-related drug attrition: the use of in vitro pharmacological profiling. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 11, 909–922 (2012).

  21. 21.

    & Addressing toxicity risk when designing and selecting compounds in early drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 19, 688–693 (2014).

  22. 22.

    & Toxicology strategies for drug discovery: present and future. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 29, 473–504 (2016).

  23. 23.

    , & Pharmaceutical innovation by the seven UK-owned pharmaceutical companies. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 25, 387–396 (1988).

  24. 24.

    Getting pharmaceutical R&D back on target. Nat. Chem. Biol. 7, 335–339 (2011).

  25. 25.

    , , & HIV-1 protease inhibitors. A review for clinicians. JAMA 277, 145–153 (1997).

  26. 26.

    , & A proton-pump inhibitor expedition: the case histories of omeprazole and esomeprazole. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 132–139 (2003).

  27. 27.

    Advances in H1-antihistamines. N. Engl. J. Med. 351, 2203–2217 (2004).

  28. 28.

    , & Novelty in the target landscape of the pharmaceutical industry. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 12, 575–576 (2013).

  29. 29.

    & Cholesterol absorption inhibitors as a therapeutic option for hypercholesterolaemia. Expert Opin. Investig. Drugs 15, 1337–1351 (2006).

  30. 30.

    , & Recent failures in antiatherosclerotic drug development. Curr. Opin. Lipidol. 24, 459–466 (2013).

  31. 31.

    & Why did NMDA receptor antagonists fail clinical trials for stroke and traumatic brain injury? Lancet Neurol. 1, 383–386 (2002).

  32. 32.

    & Small-molecule inhibitors for autoimmune arthritis: success, failure and the future. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 747, 200–205 (2015).

  33. 33.

    et al. Effect of ACAT inhibition on the progression of coronary atherosclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 354, 1253–1263 (2006).

  34. 34.

    et al. ACAT inhibition and progression of carotid atherosclerosis in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia: the CAPTIVATE randomized trial. JAMA 301, 1131–1139 (2009).

  35. 35.

    , & Efficacy, pharmacodynamics, and safety of VX-702, a novel p38 MAPK inhibitor, in rheumatoid arthritis: results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies. Arthritis Rheum. 60, 1232–1241 (2009).

  36. 36.

    et al. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of pamapimod, a p38 MAP kinase inhibitor, in a double-blind, methotrexate-controlled study of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 60, 335–344 (2009).

  37. 37.

    et al. Selfotel in acute ischemic stroke: possible neurotoxic effects of an NMDA antagonist. Stroke 31, 347–354 (2000).

  38. 38.

    , , & Aptiganel hydrochloride in acute ischemic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 286, 2673–2682 (2001).

  39. 39.

    et al. Glycine antagonist in neuroprotection for patients with acute stroke: GAIN Americas: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 285, 1719–1728 (2001).

  40. 40.

    Inhibition of acyl coenzyme A-cholesterol acyltransferase: a possible treatment of atherosclerosis? Curr. Atheroscler. Rep. 4, 65–70 (2002).

  41. 41.

    , , & The rise and fall of NMDA antagonists for ischemic stroke. Curr. Mol. Med. 4, 131–136 (2004).

  42. 42.

    , & Animal models of rheumatoid arthritis: how informative are they? Eur. J. Pharmacol. 759, 278–286 (2015).

  43. 43.

    , & Animal models in translational medicine: validation and prediction. New Horiz. Transl Med. 2, 5–11 (2014).

  44. 44.

    , & The amyloid cascade hypothesis for Alzheimer's disease: an appraisal for the development of therapeutics. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 698–712 (2011).

  45. 45.

    , & Alzheimer's disease: lessons learned from amyloidocentric clinical trials. CNS Drugs 29, 487–502 (2015).

  46. 46.

    , & Solanezumab and the amyloid hypothesis for Alzheimer's disease. BMJ 355, i6771 (2016).

  47. 47.

    The therapeutics of Alzheimer's disease: where we stand and where we are heading. Ann. Neurol. 74, 328–336 (2013).

  48. 48.

    M. U.I. R., K. Glutamate-based therapeutic approaches: clinical trials with NMDA antagonists. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 6, 53–60 (2006).

  49. 49.

    , & Muscarinic acetylcholine receptors as CNS drug targets. Pharmacol. Ther. 117, 232–243 (2008).

  50. 50.

    , , & ACAT inhibitors: the search for novel cholesterol lowering agents. Mini Rev. Med. Chem. 13, 1195–1219 (2013).

  51. 51.

    & A critique of the drug discovery and phase 3 clinical programs targeting the amyloid hypothesis for Alzheimer disease. Ann. Neurol. 76, 185–205 (2014).

  52. 52.

    , & Drug development for CNS disorders: strategies for balancing risk and reducing attrition. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 6, 521–532 (2007).

  53. 53.

    Animal models of CNS disorders. Biochem. Pharmacol. 87, 140–149 (2014).

  54. 54.

    , , , & Improving and accelerating drug development for nervous system disorders. Neuron 84, 546–553 (2014).

  55. 55.

    Anticancer drug development: the grand challenges. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 9, 253–254 (2010).

  56. 56.

    , & Translational value of mouse models in oncology drug development. Nat. Med. 21, 431–439 (2015).

  57. 57.

    , , , & Mouse models in oncoimmunology. Nat. Rev. Cancer 16, 759–773 (2016).

  58. 58.

    et al. TNF inhibitors — mechanisms of action, approved and off-label indications. Pharmacol. Rep. 66, 836–844 (2014).

  59. 59.

    Tyrosine kinases as targets in cancer therapy — successes and failures. Expert Opin. Ther. Targets 7, 215–234 (2003).

  60. 60.

    , & The discovery of receptor tyrosine kinases: targets for cancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 4, 361–370 (2004).

  61. 61.

    , , , & Targeting cancer with kinase inhibitors. J. Clin. Invest. 125, 1780–1789 (2015).

  62. 62.

    & 5-Lipoxygenase inhibitors: a review of recent developments and patents. Expert Opin. Ther. Pat. 20, 355–375 (2010).

  63. 63.

    & Targeting leukotriene B4 in inflammation. Expert Opin. Ther. Targets 18, 79–93 (2014).

  64. 64.

    et al. AMPA receptors as therapeutic targets for neurological disorders. Adv. Protein Chem. Struct. Biol. 103, 203–261 (2016).

  65. 65.

    , , & Can we unlock the potential of IGF-1R inhibition in cancer therapy? Cancer Treat. Rev. 40, 1096–1105 (2014).

  66. 66.

    & The therapeutic potential of NS3 protease inhibitors in HCV infection. Expert Opin. Investig. Drugs 14, 1129–1144 (2005).

  67. 67.

    , , , & Investigational nucleoside and nucleotide polymerase inhibitors and their use in treating hepatitis C virus. Expert Opin. Investig. Drugs 23, 1211–1223 (2014).

  68. 68.

    , , & Aliskiren, the first direct renin inhibitor for treatment of hypertension: the path of its development. J. Postgrad. Med. 58, 32–37 (2012).

  69. 69.

    , & Aliskiren: the first renin inhibitor for clinical treatment. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 7, 399–410 (2008).

  70. 70.

    , & Update on Alzheimer's disease therapy and prevention strategies. Annu. Rev. Med. 68, 413–430 (2017).

  71. 71.

    , , & Twenty-five years of type I interferon-based treatment: a critical analysis of its therapeutic use. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 26, 121–131 (2015).

  72. 72.

    , & Validating therapeutic targets through human genetics. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 12, 581–594 (2013).

  73. 73.

    et al. The support of human genetic evidence for approved drug indications. Nat. Genet. 47, 856–860 (2015).

  74. 74.

    , & Targeting innovation in antibiotic drug discovery and development. The need for a One Health – One Europe – One World Framework (WHO, 2016).

  75. 75.

    , & Orphan drug development: an economically viable strategy for biopharma R&D. Drug Discov. Today 17, 660–664 (2012).

  76. 76.

    , , & Emergence of orphan drugs in the United States: a quantitative assessment of the first 25 years. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 9, 519–522 (2010).

  77. 77.

    Rare diseases and orphan drugs. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 11, 267–268 (2012).

  78. 78.

    et al. A comprehensive map of molecular drug targets. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 16, 19–34 (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Information reported in this article is derived from Cortellis Competitive Intelligence, a database produced and owned by Clarivate Analytics. For further information about Cortellis and Clarivate Analytics, please use the following link: https://clarivate.com/products/cortellis/cortellis-competitive-intelligence/. Clarivate Analytics will not be liable for any inaccuracy in the information provided or the way in which it is used by any reader of this article. The authors gratefully thank G. McGaughey and J. Come for helpful comments in the course of manuscript preparation. This work is not funded by Clarivate Analytics, and the authors are solely responsible for the analysis and conclusions put forward in it.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Global Informatics Group, Modelling & Informatics, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc., 50 Northern Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210, USA.

    • Hsin-Pei Shih
    •  & Alex M. Aronov
  2. Global Information Services, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc., 50 Northern Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210, USA.

    • Xiaodan Zhang

Authors

  1. Search for Hsin-Pei Shih in:

  2. Search for Xiaodan Zhang in:

  3. Search for Alex M. Aronov in:

Competing interests

The authors are employees of Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated and receive salaries and stock compensation. This work is not funded by Clarivate Analytics. The authors are solely responsible for the analysis and conclusions put forward in this work.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Hsin-Pei Shih or Alex M. Aronov.

Supplementary information

Excel files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary information

    Supplementary information S1 (table)

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary information

    Supplementary information S2 (figure)

Glossary

Pharmaceutical pipeline database

A pharmaceutical pipeline database contains extensive information on drug development projects from discovery through to launch, including molecular structures, origins, therapeutic rationales, biological targets, drug properties, indications, licensing details, development history, trial outcomes and scientific references. The information comes from a variety of sources, including press releases, newsletters, conferences, scientific literature and other databases such as clinical data and patents.

About this article

Publication history

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2017.194

Further reading

  • Unexplored therapeutic opportunities in the human genome

    • Tudor I. Oprea
    • , Cristian G. Bologa
    • , Søren Brunak
    • , Allen Campbell
    • , Gregory N. Gan
    • , Anna Gaulton
    • , Shawn M. Gomez
    • , Rajarshi Guha
    • , Anne Hersey
    • , Jayme Holmes
    • , Ajit Jadhav
    • , Lars Juhl Jensen
    • , Gary L. Johnson
    • , Anneli Karlson
    • , Andrew R. Leach
    • , Avi Ma'ayan
    • , Anna Malovannaya
    • , Subramani Mani
    • , Stephen L. Mathias
    • , Michael T. McManus
    • , Terrence F. Meehan
    • , Christian von Mering
    • , Daniel Muthas
    • , Dac-Trung Nguyen
    • , John P. Overington
    • , George Papadatos
    • , Jun Qin
    • , Christian Reich
    • , Bryan L. Roth
    • , Stephan C. Schürer
    • , Anton Simeonov
    • , Larry A. Sklar
    • , Noel Southall
    • , Susumu Tomita
    • , Ilinca Tudose
    • , Oleg Ursu
    • , Dušica Vidovic´
    • , Anna Waller
    • , David Westergaard
    • , Jeremy J. Yang
    •  & Gergely Zahoránszky-Köhalmi

    Nature Reviews Drug Discovery (2018)

  • Network-based approach to prediction and population-based validation of in silico drug repurposing

    • Feixiong Cheng
    • , Rishi J. Desai
    • , Diane E. Handy
    • , Ruisheng Wang
    • , Sebastian Schneeweiss
    • , Albert-László Barabási
    •  & Joseph Loscalzo

    Nature Communications (2018)