ABSTRACTDrug repositioning aims to find new indications for existing drugs, in order to reduce drug development cost and time. Currently, numerous successful stories of drug repositioning have been reported and many drugs are already available on the market. Although many of those cases are products of serendipitous findings, repositioning opportunities can be uncovered systematically by following either a disease-centric approach, as a result of a close relation between an old and new indication, a target-centric one, which links a known target and its established drug to a new indication, or a drug-centric approach, which connects a known drug to a new target and its associated indication. The three approaches differ in their complexity, potential, and limits, and most important the necessary starting information and computational power. Which one is predominant in current drug repositioning and what does this imply for future developments? To address these questions, we systematically evaluated over 100 drugs, 200 targets structures and over 300 indications from the Drug Repositioning Database. Each of the analysed cases has been classified based on one of the three repositioning approaches, showing that the majority, more than 60%, falls within the disease-centric definition, around 30% within the target-centric, and only less than 10% within the drug-centric. We therefore concluded that so far repositioning has mainly been disease and target repositioning and not, as drug repositioning, as expected by definition. We discuss the reasons and suggest directions to exploit the full potential of techniques useful for drug-centric in order to sustain future rationale repositioning pipelines.
ROLE OF EFFECTIVE PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN REDUCING DRUG DEVELOPMENT COST
