An analysis of the attrition of drug candidates from four major pharmaceutical companies

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Volumn 14, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 475-486

  Waring, Michael J ^a   Arrowsmith, John ^b   Leach, Andrew R ^c   Leeson, Paul D ^c,d   Mandrell, Sam ^b   Owen, Robert M ^e   Pairaudeau, Garry ^a   Pennie, William D ^f,g   Pickett, Stephen D ^c   Wang, Jibo ^h   Wallace, Owen ^h,i   Weir, Alex ^b  

^a ASTRAZENECA   (United Kingdom)

^b THOMSON REUTERS   (United Kingdom)

^c GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United Kingdom)

^d Paul Leeson Consulting   (United Kingdom)

^e PFIZER GLOBAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (United Kingdom)

^f PFIZER INC   (United States)

^g TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS   (United States)

^h ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

ⁱ NOVARTIS INSTITUTES FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL SAFETY FAILURE; DATA ANALYSIS; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG QUALITY; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG STRUCTURE; DRUG TOXICITY; DRUG TREATMENT FAILURE; HEAVY ATOM COUNT; HUMAN; HYDROGEN BOND; LIPOPHILICITY; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; NONHUMAN; PH; PHARMACOKINETICS; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PHYSICAL PARAMETERS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; REVIEW; ANIMAL; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM; DRUG SCREENING; PROCEDURES; STATISTICS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TRENDS;

NEW DRUG;

ANIMALS; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS; DRUG DISCOVERY; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUGS, INVESTIGATIONAL; HUMANS; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84934439985     PISSN: 14741776     EISSN: 14741784     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrd4609     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Hay, M. et al. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat. Biotechol. 32, 40-51 (2014).
2. Bunnage, M. Getting pharmaceutical R&D back on target. Nat. Chem. Biol. 7, 335-339 (2011).
3. Kola, I., Landis, J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 711-716 (2004).
4. Lipinski, C. A. Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 23, 3-25 (1997).
5. Leeson, P. D., Springthorpe, B. The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 6, 881-890 (2007).
6. Gleeson, M. P. Generation of a set of simple, interpretable ADMET rules of thumb. J. Med. Chem. 51, 817-834 (2008).
7. Hughes, J. D. et al. Physicochemical drug properties associated with in vivo toxicological outcomes. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 18, 4872-4875 (2008).
8. Peters, J.-U., Schnider, P., Mattei, P., Kansy, M. Pharmacological promiscuity: dependence on compound properties and target specificity in a set of recent Roche compounds. ChemMedChem 4, 680-686 (2009).
9. Gleeson, M. P., Hersey, A., Montanari, D., Overington, J. Probing the links between in vitro potency, ADMET and physicochemical parameters. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 197-208 (2011).
10. Luker, T. et al. Strategies to improve the in vivo toxicology outcomes for basic candidate drug molecules. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 21, 5673-5679 (2011).
11. Kenny, P. W., Montanari, C. A. Inflation of correlation in the pursuit of drug-likeness. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 27, 1-13 (2013).
12. Van Der Graaf, P. H. et al. Can the flow of medicines be improved? Fundamental pharmacokinetic and pharmacological principles toward improving Phase II survival. Drug Discov. Today 17, 419-424 (2012).
13. Cook, D. et al. Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca's drug pipeline: a five-dimensional framework. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 13, 419-431 (2014).
14. Watson, D. E. et al. Relating molecular properties and in vitro assay results to in vivo drug disposition and toxicity outcomes. J. Med. Chem. 55, 6455-6466 (2012).
15. Wager, T. T. et al. Improving the odds of success in drug discovery: choosing the best compounds for in vivo toxicology studies. J. Med. Chem. 56, 9771-9779 (2013).
16. Muthas, D., Boyer, S., Hasselgren, C. A critical assessment of modeling safety-related drug attrition. Med. Chem. Commun. 4, 1058-1065 (2013).
17. Leeson, P. D., St-Gallay, S. A. The influence of the 'organizational factor' on compound quality in drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 749-765 (2011).
18. Lovering, F., Bikker, J., Humblet, C. Escape from Flatland: increasing saturation as an approach to improving clinical success. J. Med. Chem. 52, 6752-6756 (2009).
19. Morphy, R. The influence of target family and functional activity on the physicochemical properties of pre-clinical compounds. J. Med. Chem. 49, 2969-2978 (2006).
20. Vieth, M., Sutherland, J. J. Dependence of molecular properties on proteomic family for marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 49, 3451-3453 (2006).
21. Tetko, I. et al. Accurate in silico logP predictions: one can't embrace the unembraceable. QSAR Comb. Sci. 28, 845-849 (2009).
22. Waring, M. J. Lipophilicity in drug discovery. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 5, 235-248 (2010).
23. Bowes, J. et al. Reducing safety-related drug attrition: the use of in vitro pharmacological profiling. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 11, 909-922 (2012).
24. Waring, M. J. Defining optimum lipophilicity and molecular weight ranges for drug candidates-molecular weight dependent lower logD limits based on permeability. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 19, 2844-2851 (2009).
25. Waring, M. J., Johnstone, C. A quantitative assessment of hERG liability as a function of lipophilicity. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 17, 1759-1764 (2007).
26. Tomizawa, K., Sugano, K., Yamada & H. Horii, I. Physicochemical and cell-based approach for early screening of phospholipidosis-inducing potential. J. Toxicol. Sci. 31, 315-324 (2006).