How Experimental Medicine Is Affecting Big Pharma
Big Pharma is rethinking the clinical trials process, establishing tighter links between clinical R&D and discovery. The buzzword is experimental medicine--a catchall for the set of tools and clinical strategies used to determine whether hitting a drug target modulates a disease process in a therapeutically useful way. By so doing, companies hope to reign in clinical costs--the bulk of drug development expenses--by avoiding massive drilling into what prove to be dry drug development holes. To some, experimental medicine is also a process to create a bridge between discovery research and clinical R&D--a large task given that they hold different mindsets.
You may also be interested in...
All Big Pharma agree that the R&D crisis exists, but their approaches to dealing with it vary.
In May of this year, two major scientific journals published papers correlating response to Iressa, AstraZeneca's targeted therapy for refractory non-small cell lung cancer, to a series of mutations clustered in a section of the EGFR gene. These widely publicized findings are fueling discussions that are bound to have consequences not only for AstraZeneca, patients and clinicians, but also for many pharmaceutical companies working on targeted therapies.
FDA is near to issuing revisions to its draft guidance on pharmacogenomics. The biggest issues center around how to validate emerging biomarkers. The update should: further define the process for using markers in an NDA; call for a new genomics advisory committee; define the role of the committee that will look at voluntary submissions in the aggregate; and add clarity to the preferred data format for voluntary submission. The agency is expected to sidestep the issue of different standards for treating non-clinical and clinical biomarkers.