The past 60 years have seen huge advances in many of the scientific, technological and managerial factors that should tend to raise the efficiency of commercial drug research and development (RD). Yet the number of new drugs approved per billion US dollars spent on RD has halved roughly every 9 years since 1950, falling around 80-fold in inflation-adjusted terms. There have been many proposed solutions to the problem of declining RD efficiency. However, their apparent lack of impact so far and the contrast between improving inputs and declining output in terms of the number of new drugs make it sensible to ask whether the underlying problems have been correctly diagnosed. Here, we discuss four factors that we consider to be primary causes, which we call the 'better than the Beatles' problem; the 'cautious regulator' problem; the 'throw money at it' tendency; and the 'basic research-brute force' bias. Our aim is to provoke a more systematic analysis of the causes of the decline in RD efficiency.

/pdf/diagnosing-the-decline-in-pharmaceutical-r-d-efficiency-3lx55l7125.pdf

Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency.

Covalent drugs have proved to be successful therapies for various indications, but largely owing to safety concerns, they are rarely considered when initiating a target-directed drug discovery project. There is a need to reassess this important class of drugs, and to reconcile the discordance between the historic success of covalent drugs and the reluctance of most drug discovery teams to include them in their armamentarium. This review surveys the prevalence and pharmacological advantages of covalent drugs, discusses how potential risks and challenges may be addressed through innovative design, and presents the broad opportunities provided by targeted covalent inhibitors.

The resurgence of covalent drugs

Summary Background Olaparib (AZD2281) is a small-molecule, potent oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor. We aimed to assess the safety and tolerability of this drug in patients without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations with advanced triple-negative breast cancer or high-grade serous and/or undifferentiated ovarian cancer. Methods In this phase 2, multicentre, open-label, non-randomised study, women with advanced high-grade serous and/or undifferentiated ovarian carcinoma or triple-negative breast cancer were enrolled and received olaparib 400 mg twice a day. Patients were stratified according to whether they had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation or not. The primary endpoint was objective response rate by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST). All patients who received treatment were included in the analysis of toxic effects, and patients who had measurable lesions at baseline were included in the primary efficacy analysis. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00679783. Findings 91 patients were enrolled (65 with ovarian cancer and 26 breast cancer) and 90 were treated between July 8, 2008, and Sept 24, 2009. In the ovarian cancer cohorts, 64 patients received treatment. 63 patients had target lesions and therefore were evaluable for objective response as per RECIST. In these patients, confirmed objective responses were seen in seven (41%; 95% CI 22–64) of 17 patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and 11 (24%; 14–38) of 46 without mutations. No confirmed objective responses were reported in patients with breast cancer. The most common adverse events were fatigue (45 [70%] of patients with ovarian cancer, 13 [50%] of patients with breast cancer), nausea (42 [66%] and 16 [62%]), vomiting (25 [39%] and nine [35%]), and decreased appetite (23 [36%] and seven [27%]). Interpretation Our study suggests that olaparib is a promising treatment for women with ovarian cancer and further assessment of the drug in clinical trials is needed. Funding AstraZeneca.

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanonc/PIIS1470-2045(11)70214-5.pdf

Olaparib in patients with recurrent high-grade serous or poorly differentiated ovarian carcinoma or triple-negative breast cancer: a phase 2, multicentre, open-label, non-randomised study

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerases (PARPs) are enzymes that transfer ADP-ribose groups to target proteins and thereby affect various nuclear and cytoplasmic processes. The activity of PARP family members, such as PARP1 and PARP2, is tied to cellular signalling pathways, and through poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation (PARylation) they ultimately promote changes in gene expression, RNA and protein abundance, and the location and activity of proteins that mediate signalling responses. PARPs act in a complex response network that is driven by the cellular, molecular and chemical biology of poly(ADP-ribose) (PAR). This PAR-dependent response network is crucial for a broad array of physiological and pathological responses and thus is a good target for chemical therapeutics for several diseases.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrm3376.pdf?WT.ec_id=NRM-201207&error=cookies_not_supported&code=1b6cbc6f-3682-44bb-a94c-14d13580ddc6

New insights into the molecular and cellular functions of poly(ADP-ribose) and PARPs.

Summary Background Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have activity in ovarian carcinomas with homologous recombination deficiency. Along with BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA) mutations genomic loss of heterozygosity (LOH) might also represent homologous recombination deficiency. In ARIEL2, we assessed the ability of tumour genomic LOH, quantified with a next-generation sequencing assay, to predict response to rucaparib, an oral PARP inhibitor. Methods ARIEL2 is an international, multicentre, two-part, phase 2, open-label study done at 49 hospitals and cancer centres in Australia, Canada, France, Spain, the UK, and the USA. In ARIEL2 Part 1, patients with recurrent, platinum-sensitive, high-grade ovarian carcinoma were classified into one of three predefined homologous recombination deficiency subgroups on the basis of tumour mutational analysis: BRCA mutant (deleterious germline or somatic), BRCA wild-type and LOH high (LOH high group), or BRCA wild-type and LOH low (LOH low group). We prespecified a cutoff of 14% or more genomic LOH for LOH high. Patients began treatment with oral rucaparib at 600 mg twice per day for continuous 28 day cycles until disease progression or any other reason for discontinuation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. All patients treated with at least one dose of rucaparib were included in the safety analyses and all treated patients who were classified were included in the primary endpoint analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01891344. Enrolment into ARIEL2 Part 1 is complete, although an extension (Part 2) is ongoing. Findings 256 patients were screened and 206 were enrolled between Oct 30, 2013, and Dec 19, 2014. At the data cutoff date (Jan 18, 2016), 204 patients had received rucaparib, with 28 patients remaining in the study. 192 patients could be classified into one of the three predefined homologous recombination deficiency subgroups: BRCA mutant (n=40), LOH high (n=82), or LOH low (n=70). Tumours from 12 patients were established as BRCA wild-type, but could not be classified for LOH, because of insufficient neoplastic nuclei in the sample. The median duration of treatment for the 204 patients was 5·7 months (IQR 2·8–10·1). 24 patients in the BRCA mutant subgroup, 56 patients in the LOH high subgroup, and 59 patients in the LOH low subgroup had disease progression or died. Median progression-free survival after rucaparib treatment was 12·8 months (95% CI 9·0–14·7) in the BRCA mutant subgroup, 5·7 months (5·3–7·6) in the LOH high subgroup, and 5·2 months (3·6–5·5) in the LOH low subgroup. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the BRCA mutant (hazard ratio 0·27, 95% CI 0·16–0·44, p Interpretation In patients with BRCA mutant or BRCA wild-type and LOH high platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinomas treated with rucaparib, progression-free survival was longer than in patients with BRCA wild-type LOH low carcinomas. Our results suggest that assessment of tumour LOH can be used to identify patients with BRCA wild-type platinum-sensitive ovarian cancers who might benefit from rucaparib. These results extend the potential usefulness of PARP inhibitors in the treatment setting beyond BRCA mutant tumours. Funding Clovis Oncology, US Department of Defense Ovarian Cancer Research Program, Stand Up To Cancer—Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance—National Ovarian Cancer Coalition Dream Team Translational Research Grant, and V Foundation Translational Award.

https://escholarship.org/content/qt1gv7r4vj/qt1gv7r4vj.pdf?t=oht4fn

Rucaparib in relapsed, platinum-sensitive high-grade ovarian carcinoma (ARIEL2 Part 1): an international, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial

Background Triple-negative breast cancers have inherent defects in DNA repair, making this cancer a rational target for therapy based on poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition. Methods We conducted an open-label, phase 2 study to compare the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and carboplatin with or without iniparib, a small molecule with PARP-inhibitory activity, in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. A total of 123 patients were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and carboplatin (at a dose equivalent to an area under the concentration–time curve of 2) on days 1 and 8 — with or without iniparib (at a dose of 5.6 mg per kilogram of body weight) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 — every 21 days. Primary end points were the rate of clinical benefit (i.e., the rate of objective response [complete or partial response] plus the rate of stable disease for ≥6 months) and safety. Additional end points included the rate of obj...

/pdf/iniparib-plus-chemotherapy-in-metastatic-triple-negative-4j9eea4v0u.pdf

Christine Rocha

Papers

Iniparib plus Chemotherapy in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer