Improving the odds of drug development success through human genomics: modelling study
Open Access
- 10 December 2019
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Scientific Reports
- Vol. 9 (1), 1-25
- https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-54849-w
Abstract
Lack of efficacy in the intended disease indication is the major cause of clinical phase drug development failure. Explanations could include the poor external validity of pre-clinical (cell, tissue, and animal) models of human disease and the high false discovery rate (FDR) in preclinical science. FDR is related to the proportion of true relationships available for discovery (gamma), and the type 1 (false-positive) and type 2 (false negative) error rates of the experiments designed to uncover them. We estimated the FDR in preclinical science, its effect on drug development success rates, and improvements expected from use of human genomics rather than preclinical studies as the primary source of evidence for drug target identification. Calculations were based on a sample space defined by all human diseases - the 'disease-ome' - represented as columns; and all protein coding genes - 'the protein-coding genome'-represented as rows, producing a matrix of unique gene- (or protein-) disease pairings. We parameterised the space based on 10,000 diseases, 20,000 protein-coding genes, 100 causal genes per disease and 4000 genes encoding druggable targets, examining the effect of varying the parameters and a range of underlying assumptions, on the inferences drawn. We estimated gamma, defined mathematical relationships between preclinical FDR and drug development success rates, and estimated improvements in success rates based on human genomics (rather than orthodox preclinical studies). Around one in every 200 protein-disease pairings was estimated to be causal (gamma = 0.005) giving an FDR in preclinical research of 92.6%, which likely makes a major contribution to the reported drug development failure rate of 96%. Observed success rate was only slightly greater than expected for a random pick from the sample space. Values for gamma back-calculated from reported preclinical and clinical drug development success rates were also close to the a priori estimates. Substituting genome wide (or druggable genome wide) association studies for preclinical studies as the major information source for drug target identification was estimated to reverse the probability of late stage failure because of the more stringent type 1 error rate employed and the ability to interrogate every potential druggable target in the same experiment. Genetic studies conducted at much larger scale, with greater resolution of disease end-points, e.g. by connecting genomics and electronic health record data within healthcare systems has the potential to produce radical improvement in drug development success rate.Funding Information
- Wellcome Trust
- DH | National Institute for Health Research
- European Molecular Biology Laboratory
- Rosetrees Trust
This publication has 55 references indexed in Scilit:
- Secretory Phospholipase A2-IIA and Cardiovascular Disease: A Mendelian Randomization StudyJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2013
- Threats to Validity in the Design and Conduct of Preclinical Efficacy Studies: A Systematic Review of Guidelines for In Vivo Animal ExperimentsPLoS Medicine, 2013
- The interleukin-6 receptor as a target for prevention of coronary heart disease: a mendelian randomisation analysisThe Lancet, 2012
- A Versatile Gene-Based Test for Genome-wide Association StudiesAmerican Journal of Human Genetics, 2010
- PLA2G7 Genotype, Lipoprotein-Associated Phospholipase A 2 Activity, and Coronary Heart Disease Risk in 10 494 Cases and 15 624 Controls of European AncestryCirculation, 2010
- Separating the Mechanism-Based and Off-Target Actions of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibitors With CETP Gene PolymorphismsCirculation, 2010
- Mendelian RandomizationJama-Journal Of The American Medical Association, 2009
- Estimation of significance thresholds for genomewide association scansGenetic Epidemiology, 2008
- Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic reviewBMJ, 2006
- Why Most Published Research Findings Are FalsePLoS Medicine, 2005