Several blockbuster drugs that have made big profits for pharmaceutical companies were essentially discovered by accident while in testing for another purpose usually totally unrelated to its final use.
I am sure many more examples can be found. I read somewhere but am unable to cite that loratadine(brand name Clairitin) was initially tested as an anti-psychotic, which is strange since the drug is mainly known for not crossing the blood brain barrier and as a histamine receptor antagonist.
I guess in my head I imagined pharmaceutical companies looking for a new type of drug would start by looking for drugs similar to existing substances, or at least testing a drug to see what it is an agonist or antagonist to. These cases make it sound like they randomly test substances without a clue whether it will be effective or not, and then if there are interesting side effects they investigate.
I guess I am asking do they not first before human trials look at the structure of a substance and make at least an educated guess at what it will do?
I’m currently developing a drug (Phase I) off an idea I had about 7 years ago. That’s 7 years of research by myself and then a growing number of people over the years. So, the idea has morphed quite a bit, and it’s not exactly what it was when I started because as you get more data and understand your molecules more, you change the way you look at things. The examples you cite here seem to be just rolling with the data.
There is nothing sloppy about drug development. Jesus, is it a regimented process. You can be sloppy in the early research stage, the discovery stage. Maybe sloppy is even a bonus. But, not in the development stage. That is by the book.
I wouldn’t call it sloppy, so much as “anything can happen.” Viagra was originally studied as a treatment for high blood pressure. The erection thing was a side effect.
It’s not just medicine, of course. Early research into glyphosate was dropped because the damn stuff kept killing all kinds of plants, not just weeds. Only later did someone figure out that with directed application, that could be beneficial. Similarly, the adhesive now used on Post-It Notes was supposed to be extra strong. It took five years for 3M to realize how a mild adhesive could be used.
This http://pipeline.corante.com/ is a well-respected blog by a drug discovery scientist. He comments on both the science and the business side. He’d be an awesome asset to our GQ.
A little digging into his archive of posts will get you more info on the challenges and difficulty of drug discovery & development than you ever thought possible. Most commenters to most posts are also intelligent & insightful.
He’s also got a good list of other blogs & resources on the left side. More than a lifetimes’ worth of reading, mostly on these kinds of topics.
The only thing his blog UI lacks is a way to see the listing of article categories all on one page so you could identify categories of interest. Once you find a single article whose category list includes a promising-sounding entry, you can click that category link to see all the related articles. But there’s no TOC of categories.
Lastly, it happens the last 5 or 10 posts have not been about drug discovery challenges directly. So you’ll have to dig back a couple pages to find a good jumping-in point.
Sometimes it’s serendipity, not sloppiness. Pretty common to test existing compounds against new needs as well. This has been happy news for, say, anyone who benefited from sulfa drugs, or had HIV, or hepatitis C…
I wouldn’t call it sloppy, rather a willingness to consider alternative uses for a medication. AIUI these “accidental” discoveries occurred when they were developing a drug for one condition x and noticed a side effect that could be useful for treating a different condition.
For example, some modern antidepressants were originally developed as anti-seizure medications. However, doctors noticed improved mood in patients, and since antidepressants are a rather lucrative market (compared to seizure meds), the parent company decided to market it as an antidepressant as well.
Yep. It’s pretty standard practice that if you have a new idea, like “I want a drug that will make these cells do THIS”, one of the first steps is to screen libraries of already known, commercially available substances.
Just because something being tested for X turns out to be not very good at X, that doesn’t mean that the proper research wasn’t done to determine that it had a good chance of doing X. It just means that it didn’t pan out.
If it turns out to be good for Y instead, then bonus! Most things that don’t pan out just don’t pan out. You don’t hear about those, though, because they don’t make good stories.
Drug testing is expensive and isn’t going to be done unless the research suggests that X is possible.
I’d recommend the OP check out “The Search” section of the award-winning short Why Man Creates (beginning at 17:12 in this version) where the scientists discuss research that rules things out, as much as ruling things in.
[QUOTE=Dr. Wheeler]
But that’s the nature of the process. You get what you think is a marvelous idea, and it just doesn’t pan out.
[/Quote]
What makes you think they don’t? The history of both your examples indicates they did make an educated guess. And in the case of minoxidil a good one, since it was actually used as a drug for what they developed it for.
You may have an exaggerated expectation of how accurate an educated guess in drug development usually is, and no idea how many drugs are abandoned at an early stage because they do nothing or have bad side effects.
There is no such thing as a drug that does only one thing. Just because you can guess one thing that a drug will do doesn’t mean that you can guess everything that the drug will do. That’s one of the reasons you do testing, to see what all else it will do. Sometimes, the other things it does are bad. You either reject the drug because of those, or accept it but publish warnings about the side effects. Sometimes, the other things it does are good. In that case, you start selling the drug for that effect, too. Most often, the other things it does can be either bad or good, depending on the situation. In that case, you publish what you know, and people ask their doctor if your drug is right for them.
Drugs have side effects.I don’t think there will be a time where drugs have no side effect.
They may be able to minimize it a bit example, I know a co worker who has cancer and is on chemotherapy. The new chemotherapy the co- worker is taking has less side effect and more aggressive to the cancer. Had he got cancer two years ago it would have bean worse for him , much worse.
I think the key is understanding more about how the human body works and with that knowledge they can make new drugs that is more aggressive and less side effect.