Molecular Survival Strategies of Organisms: HSP and Small Molecules for Diagnostics and Drug Development

Author(s):  
Andreas Kirschning ◽  
Johanna-Gabriela Walter ◽  
Frank Stahl ◽  
Emilia Schax ◽  
Thomas Scheper ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
John J. Sramek ◽  
Michael F. Murphy ◽  
Sherilyn Adcock ◽  
Jeffrey G. Stark ◽  
Neal R. Cutler

Background: Phase 1 studies comprise the first exposure of a promising new chemical entity in healthy volunteers or, when appropriate, in patients. To assure a solid foundation for subsequent drug development, this first step must carefully assess the safety and tolerance of a new compound, and often provide some indication of potential effect, so that a safe dose or dose range can be confidently selected for the initial Phase 2 efficacy study in the target patient population. Methods: This review was based on a literature search using both Google Scholar and PubMed, dated back to 1970, using search terms including “healthy volunteers”, “Phase 1”, and “normal volunteers” , and also based on the authors’ own experience conducting Phase 1 clinical trials. This paper reviews the history of Phase 1 studies of small molecules and their rapid evolution, focusing on the critical single and multiple dose studies, their designs, methodology, use of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling, application of potentially helpful biomarkers, study stopping criteria, and novel study designs. Results: We advocate for determining the safe dose range of a new compound by conducting careful dose escalation in a well-staffed inpatient setting, defining the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) by reaching the minimally intolerated dose (MID). The dose immediately below the MID is then defined as the MTD. This is best accomplished by using appropriately screened patients for the target indication, as patients in many CNS indications often tolerate doses differently than healthy non-patients. Biomarkers for safety and pharmacodynamic measures can also assist in further defining a safe and potentially effective dose range for subsequent clinical trial phases. Conclusion: Phase 1 studies can yield critical insights to the pharmacology of a new compound in man and offer perhaps the only development period in which the dose range can be safely and thoroughly explored. Phase 1 studies often contain multiple endpoint objectives, the reconciliation of which can present a dilemma for drug developers and study investigators alike, but which can crucially determine whether a compound can survive to the next step in the drug development process.


2008 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin S Jones ◽  
Alexander P Alimov ◽  
Horacio L Rilo ◽  
Ronald J Jandacek ◽  
Laura A Woollett ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (7) ◽  
pp. 891-895 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Jones ◽  
Joanna Harding ◽  
Andy Makin ◽  
Pramila Singh ◽  
Björn Jacobsen ◽  
...  

Over the last decade, the minipig has been established as a species which can be used in biomedical research, including drug development safety assessment. There are no mandatory regulatory guidelines regarding species selection strategy for safety assessment; hence, choice is at the discretion of companies responsible for drug development. A survey of member companies by IQ DruSafe (2016) highlighted inconsistent and low use of the minipig. At the 12th Annual Minipig Research Forum in 2018, presentations and a workshop examined current practices and considered if the minipig could be utilized more from earliest drug development stages. Despite the agreed utility of scientific data and validity of the minipig, especially for small molecules, each company has its own approach in nonrodent species selection, without consistent rationale. The overall objective should be to ensure the most appropriate species is selected and is scientifically based, with the minipig systematically included from early screening stages.


2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Lucia Fallacara ◽  
Iuni Margaret Laura Tris ◽  
Amalia Belfiore ◽  
Maurizio Botta

The Drug development process has undergone a great change over the years. The way, from haphazard discovery of new natural products with a potent biological activity to a rational design of small molecule effective against a selected target, has been long and sprinkled with difficulties. The oldest drug development models are widely perceived as opaque and inefficient, with the cost of research and development continuing to rise even if the production of new drugs remains constant. The present paper, will give an overview of the principles, approaches, processes, and status of drug discovery today with an eye towards the past and the future.


2022 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Min Wei ◽  
Xudong Zhang ◽  
Xiaolin Pan ◽  
Bo Wang ◽  
Changge Ji ◽  
...  

AbstractHuman oral bioavailability (HOB) is a key factor in determining the fate of new drugs in clinical trials. HOB is conventionally measured using expensive and time-consuming experimental tests. The use of computational models to evaluate HOB before the synthesis of new drugs will be beneficial to the drug development process. In this study, a total of 1588 drug molecules with HOB data were collected from the literature for the development of a classifying model that uses the consensus predictions of five random forest models. The consensus model shows excellent prediction accuracies on two independent test sets with two cutoffs of 20% and 50% for classification of molecules. The analysis of the importance of the input variables allowed the identification of the main molecular descriptors that affect the HOB class value. The model is available as a web server at www.icdrug.com/ICDrug/ADMET for quick assessment of oral bioavailability for small molecules. The results from this study provide an accurate and easy-to-use tool for screening of drug candidates based on HOB, which may be used to reduce the risk of failure in late stage of drug development. Graphical Abstract


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Coryandar Gilvary ◽  
Jamal Elkhader ◽  
Neel Madhukar ◽  
Claire Henchcliffe ◽  
Marcus D. Goncalves ◽  
...  

AbstractDrug repurposing, identifying novel indications for drugs, bypasses common drug development pitfalls to ultimately deliver therapies to patients faster. However, most repurposing discoveries have been led by anecdotal observations (e.g. Viagra) or experimental-based repurposing screens, which are costly, time-consuming, and imprecise. Recently, more systematic computational approaches have been proposed, however these rely on utilizing the information from the diseases a drug is already approved to treat. This inherently limits the algorithms, making them unusable for investigational molecules. Here, we present a computational approach to drug repurposing, CATNIP, that requires only biological and chemical information of a molecule. CATNIP is trained with 2,576 diverse small molecules and uses 16 different drug similarity features, such as structural, target, or pathway based similarity. This model obtains significant predictive power (AUC = 0.841). Using our model, we created a repurposing network to identify broad scale repurposing opportunities between drug types. By exploiting this network, we identified literature-supported repurposing candidates, such as the use of systemic hormonal preparations for the treatment of respiratory illnesses. Furthermore, we demonstrated that we can use our approach to identify novel uses for defined drug classes. We found that adrenergic uptake inhibitors, specifically amitriptyline and trimipramine, could be potential therapies for Parkinson’s disease. Additionally, using CATNIP, we predicted the kinase inhibitor, vandetanib, as a possible treatment for Type 2 Diabetes. Overall, this systematic approach to drug repurposing lays the groundwork to streamline future drug development efforts.


2008 ◽  
Vol 51 (9) ◽  
pp. 2606-2612 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria-Teresa Gutierrez-Lugo ◽  
Carole A. Bewley

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14589-e14589
Author(s):  
F. P. Thomas

e14589 Background: The rapidly growing market for anticancer drugs has attracted numerous companies, and this therapeutic area represents more that a third of all drug development candidates. We studied the pipeline of Pharma (P) and Biotech (B) companies to look at possible differences and 2008 changes in composition. Methods: The anticancer drug pipeline including candidates in Phase I to III and marketed products still actively developed in new indications was reviewed by systematically searching the websites of 41 P and 269 B active in oncology. Results: B, defined as entrepreneurial R&D-focused companies had 463 molecules including 160 in Phase I, 202 in Phase II, 73 in Phase III, and 28 marketed. P develop 219 molecules including 78 in Phase I, 61 in Phase II, 38 in Phase III, and 42 marketed. The number of candidates decreased by 10 in B and increased by 15 in P pipelines during H2, 2008, translating difficult economic conditions for B (with few candidates entering Phase I) and an increased focus of P on oncology (internal R&D efforts and B acquisition that accounts for 39 of its 219 molecules). B licensed out 119 of its candidates to P or other B. The portfolio of B and P analyzed by mechanism of action significantly differs. Symptomatic/adjuvant treatments represent 7.1 vs 5.5%, targeted small molecules 28.7 vs 42.9%, cytotoxics including reformulations 20.5 vs 22.4%, cell/gene therapies, oncolytic viruses, and oligonucleotides 7.3 vs 0%, antibodies and related proteins 19% vs 17.8%; immunotherapy 13.1% vs 5%, photodynamic and radio- therapy 2.8% vs 0.5% for B vs P, respectively. The number of antibodies and targeted small molecules increased during H1, 2008 by 2.1 and 4.4%, respectively. P recently enriched its antibody portfolio through B acquisition, but completely moved out of cytotoxics, except mid-size European and Japanese P. An update as of May,1st 2009 with a trend analysis including the potential impact of the financial crisis on B portfolio will be presented. Conclusions: The oncology pipelines of P and B are broad, different for B and P, and rapidly changing in composition. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document