Alterations in Processes and Priorities Needed for New Drug Development
Authors: Jennifer Fisher Wilson
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2006)

Current Clinical Issues21 November 2006Alterations in Processes and Priorities Needed for New Drug DevelopmentJennifer Fisher WilsonJennifer Fisher WilsonScience Reporter, Annals of Internal Medicine Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-145-10-200611210-00024 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail During the 1990s, the U.S. drug industry launched one big new drug after another—the list included statins, proton-pump inhibitors, antidepressants, osteoporosis therapies, and nonsedating antihistamines. Pharmaceutical companies predicted that the number of new drugs would continue to grow in the years to come, a prediction supported by the investment of more than $100 billion in drug research and development by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), public institutions, and private companies. Furthermore, scientific advances related to combinatorial chemistry, genomics, and proteomics promised to make drug discovery and development more efficient.Unfortunately, instead of prospering, drug development has stalled. The U.S. ...References1. The Critical Path to New Medical Products. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Accessed at www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/ on 12 October 2006. Google Scholar2. Gottlieb S. Speech before the 2006 Conference on Adaptive Trial Design, Washington, DC. 10 July 2006. Google Scholar3. Varki A, Holmes E, Yamada T, et al. Physician-scientists are needed now more than ever. Nature. 2006;440:740. [PMID: 16598232] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Ley TJ, Rosenberg LE. The physician-scientist career pipeline in 2005: build it, and they will come. JAMA. 2005;294:1343-51. [PMID: 16174692] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Promoting Translational and Clinical Science: The Critical Role of Medical Schools and Teaching Hospitals. Association of American Medical Colleges Task Force II on Clinical Research. May 2006. Accessed at https://services.aamc.org/Publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=Product.displayForm&prd_id=150&prv_id=176 on October 12, 2006. Google Scholar6. Wood AJ. A proposal for radical changes in the drug-approval process. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:618-23. [PMID: 16899784] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Ridley DB, Grabowski HG, Moe JL. Developing drugs for developing countries. Health Affairs (Millwood). 2006;25:313-24. [PMID: 16522573] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: Science Reporter, Annals of Internal Medicine Disclosures: None disclosed.E-mail:[email protected]org PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited byPredicting Drug-Disease Associations via Multi-Task Learning Based on Collective Matrix FactorizationPredicting drug-disease associations by using similarity constrained matrix factorizationPredicting drug-disease associations and their therapeutic function based on the drug-disease association bipartite networkPrediction of new drug indications based on clinical data and network modularityInverse Virtual Screening in Drug Repositioning: Detailed Investigation and Case StudiesRepositioning of drugs using open-access data portal DTome: A test case with probenecid (Review) 21 November 2006Volume 145, Issue 10Page: 793-796KeywordsBiomarkersCareers in researchCholesterolClinical trialsDrug discoveryDrug research and developmentDrug safetyDrugsProteins ePublished: 21 November 2006 Issue Published: 21 November 2006 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2006 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...