Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mapping and Characterizing the Development Pathway from Non-Clinical through Early Clinical Drug Development

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Pharmaceutical Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The translation of basic research knowledge into human testing is widely regarded as an inefficient and lengthy process, yet there is no detailed, quantitative information characterizing this early drug development pathway. The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD) conducted a study to derive a generalizable granular process map of the non-clinical to early clinical drug development pathway and associated duration metrics.

Methods

Tufts CSDD constituted a working group of seven small and mid-sized pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to identify pathway milestones and to provide duration metrics. Tufts CSDD then analysed duration data between each process step in the development pathway. Data for Investigational New Drug (IND) submissions are reported overall and stratified by therapeutic area, phase II transition success and modality.

Results

Duration metrics (mean and standard deviation [SD]; median and interquartile range [IQR]) are provided for each milestone along the early drug development and regulatory pathways (e.g. time to IND submission). The overall process from First Synthesis — Medicinal Chemistry to First Patient (Subject) First Dose took on average 151.4 weeks (n = 17; SD = 90.0 weeks) and a median duration of 133.0 weeks (IQR = 89.6 weeks) overall. There were no statistically significant differences between stratified data. Key pathway steps, their respective durations and variation across programmes are presented.

Discussion

The results of this Tufts CSDD study provide a detailed representative mapping of the early drug development research pathway and baseline duration metrics summarizing the overall process and distinct process stages. To our knowledge, this is the first time such a mapping has been completed. Observed duration areas with wide variation between key steps in the process suggest acceleration opportunities. Large variation in duration data may be due to differences in molecule size and structure, as well as strategic decisions made by management teams. Best practices from faster companies also indicate that they perform many activities in parallel, moving forward even before certain milestones have been achieved, and they tend to have more frequent and substantive cross dialogue across different functional areas earlier in the process.

Conclusion

It is hoped that the results of this study will assist research and development professionals in making more informed management decisions and in identifying opportunities to streamline and improve the non-clinical to early-stage clinical process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V
Table VI

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. DiMasi JA. New drug development in the United States from 1963 to 1999. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001 May; 69 (5): 286–96.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Mathieu M, editor. Analysis of U.S. new drug development process by average time to complete each phase of product development. Parexel biopharmaceutical R&D statistical sourcebook 2011/2012. Waltham (MA): Parexel International Corporation, 2011: 229.

  3. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America: Pharmaceutical Industry Profile 2011. Washington, DC: PhRMA, April 2011. Washington DC, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, 2011: 12 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/159/phrma_profile_2011_final.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 17].

  4. International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH). ICH harmonised tripartite guideline, safety pharmacology studies for human pharmaceuticals S7A. Current step 4 version. Geneva: ICH, 2000 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Safety/S7A/Step4/S7A_Guideline.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 17].

  5. International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH). ICH guidance for industry on non-clinical safety studies for the conduct of human clinical trials and marketing authority for pharmaceuticals M3(R2). Current step 2 version. Geneva: ICH, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm129524.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 17].

  6. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry: drug interaction studies — study design, data analysis, implications for dosing, and labeling recommendations. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2012 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM292362.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 17].

  7. International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH). ICH harmonised tripartite guideline, detection of toxicity to reproduction for medicinal products & toxicity to male fertility S5(R2). Current step 4 version. Geneva: ICH, 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Safety/S5_R2/Step4/S5_R2_Guideline.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 17].

  8. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry: S6 preclinical safety evaluation of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1997 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/regulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm129171.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 17].

  9. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry: content and format of investigational new drug applications (INDs) for phase 1 studies of drugs, including well-characterized, therapeutic, biotechnology-derived products. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1995 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM071597.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 17].

  10. International Conference on Harmonization (ICH). ICH S7B guideline., Step two revision: the non-clinical evaluation of the potential for delayed ventricular repolarization (QT interval prolongation) by Human Pharmaceuticals. Geneva: ICH, 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/2004d-0378-gdl0001.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 17].

  11. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry: estimating the maximum safe starting dose in initial clinical trials for therapeutics in adult healthy volunteers. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm078932.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 18].

  12. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry and investigators: safety reporting requirements for INDs and BA/BE studies. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM227351.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 18].

  13. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry: CGMP for phase 1 investigational drugs. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM070273.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 18].

  14. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry, investigators, and reviewers: exploratory IND studies. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM078933.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 18].

  15. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry Q&A: content and format of INDs for phase 1 studies of drugs, including well-characterized, therapeutic, biotechnology-derived products. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM078928.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 18].

  16. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry: Bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products — general considerations. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2003 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM070124.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 18].

  17. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry: IND exemptions for studies of lawfully marketed drug or biological products for the treatment of cancer. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM071717.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 18].

  18. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guideline for submitting supporting documentation in drug applications for the manufacture of drug substances. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1987 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm070632.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 18].

  19. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry: immunotoxicology evaluation of investigational new drugs. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2002 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM079239.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 18].

  20. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry: content and format of chemistry, manufacturing and controls information and establishment description information for a biological in vitro diagnostic product. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1999 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/Blood/ucm080819.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 18].

  21. Investigational New Drug Application, 21 U.S.C. § 321 (1987) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=312 [Accessed 2012 Jul 18].

  22. Good laboratory practice for non-clinical laboratory studies. 21 U.S.C. § 58 (1978) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=58 [Accessed 2012 Jul 18].

  23. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Manual of policies and procedures, MAPP 6030.1, IND process and review procedures (including clinical holds). Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1998 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ManualofPoliciesProcedures/ucm082022.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 18].

  24. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Manual of policies and procedures, MAPP 4200.1, consulting the controlled substance staff on INDs and protocols that use schedule I controlled substances and drugs. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2003 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/ManualofPoliciesProcedures/UCM073577.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 18].

  25. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Manual of policies and procedures, MAPP 5210.5, review of investigational new drug applications (bio-INDs) by the Office of Generic Drugs. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/ManualofPoliciesProcedures/UCM079593.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 18].

  26. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry: single dose acute toxicity testing for pharmaceuticals. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1999 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm079270.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 18].

  27. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Manual of policies and procedures, MAPP 6030.4, INDs: screening INDs. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2001 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ManualofPoliciesProcedures/ucm082026.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 18].

  28. Steinmetz KL, Spack EG. The basics of preclinical drug development for neurodegenerative disease indications. BMS Neurol 2009; 9 Suppl. 1: S2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pritchard JF, Jurima-Romet M, Reimer ML, et al. Making better drugs: decision gates in non-clinical drug development. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2003 Jul; 2 (7): 542–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Walsh, MR. Submitting an IND: what you need to know. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/NewsEvents/UCM185912.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 18].

  31. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry: carcinogenicity study protocol submissions. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2002 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm078924.pdf [Accessed 2012 Jul 18].

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded with an unrestricted grant from Aptuit, Inc. The authors would like to thank the process map working group participants Dana Aftab, Janet Clarke, Lanna Feldman, Jo Ferdinando, Seth Hopkins, Ian Hunneyball, Vic Kadambi, Fred Pritchard, Ray Skwierczynski, Athelney J. Woolnough and their respective teams, from the various pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, including Biogen Idec Inc., Celerion, Evotec AG, Exelixis Inc., Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company, Shire Pharmaceuticals and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., for their input into the study. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, Tufts University, 75 Kneeland Street, Ste 1100, Boston, Massachusetts, MA 02111, USA

    Stella Stergiopoulos & Kenneth A. Getz

Authors
  1. Stella Stergiopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kenneth A. Getz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stella Stergiopoulos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stergiopoulos, S., Getz, K.A. Mapping and Characterizing the Development Pathway from Non-Clinical through Early Clinical Drug Development. Pharm Med 26, 297–307 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03262374

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03262374

Keywords

Search

Navigation