Drug Development
The benefits of drug repositioning
Drugs in development, on the market, or those that are shelved because of lack of efficacy, are excellent starting points for further development. Finding new indications for such drugs will benefit patients who will see a potential new therapy sooner, will maximise their value and will also protect the original IP owner against competitor adjacency moves. Typically, repositioning is done by accident, or in a limited way. New technologies however, enable the systematic evaluation of any drug or mechanism of action against any disease or adverse event.
F
rom 2007-09, 30-40% of drugs or biologics that were approved or launched for the first time in the US were either drugs repositioned for new indications, reformulations or new combi- nations of existing drugs1. This is the lifecycle busi- ness with repositioning as a major contributor, and it is rarely given much attention outside of its prac- titioners. Yet, why is it practised, why is it such a big percentage of biopharma approvals and what is its future? How come more than 30% of new mar- ket entrants are existing drugs finding commercial success through variations and new uses, and yet this is just recently beginning to be recognised as a high-performance strategy in its own right? Any business model that relies on product devel- opment that takes 10-15 years and costs about $1.3 billion per successful product launch2 requires constant appraisal and rethinking. How does big pharma make such a model work? To date, the success that this model has enjoyed is the result of multiple shots on goal, meaning multiple drugs entering trials before one makes it all the way to the market: the one that is successful gen- erates enough revenues to fund the attrition of the rest of the portfolio that occurs because of lack of efficacy or because of unexpected safety concerns in clinical trials. The attrition is important to keep in mind, as approximately one in 10 mature pre- clinical candidates will make it to product launch3,
Drug Discovery World Spring 2011
and hundreds of thousands of molecular library members will need to be screened and developed before the mature preclinical candidates them- selves are available for first-in-human studies. This attrition rate puts tremendous pressure on a drug pipeline since it means that one must assume that failure is the default outcome, given that about nine out of 10 candidates will not be launched. Adding to this pressure is the so-called patent cliff, which vividly describes the more than $100 billion in revenues that are due to be lost in the next few years as patents begin to expire and generic ver- sions of drugs take the place of the original brand- ed forms4. The patent cliff and attrition rates are considered to be by-products of a broader R&D productivity and innovation challenge. Multiple authors and commentators discuss specific ele- ments of the R&D process itself, with a view towards improving specific steps that will increase the number of drugs that have a higher chance of success in the clinic, while reducing the overall costs of the effort within a pipeline environment5. The specific arguments in favour of drug reposi- tioning as a contributor to pipeline growth and as a defence against generics are simple and potent:
1. The safety advantage. Existing drugs that are either approved or have been shown to be safe in late-stage trials, but have failed to meet end points
9 By Dr Aris Persidis
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80