One of the major shortcomings of the current drug discovery and development process is the inability to bridge the gap between early stage discoveries and pre-clinical research in order to advance innovations beyond the discovery phase. This book examines a drug discovery and development model, where the respective expertise of academia and industry are brought together to take promising discoveries through to proof of concept, providing a means to de-risk the drug discovery and development process.

Improving and Accelerating Therapeutic Development for Nervous System Disorders is the summary of a workshop convened by the IOM Forum on Neuroscience and Nervous System Disorders to examine opportunities to accelerate early phases of drug development for nervous system drug discovery. Workshop participants discussed challenges in neuroscience research for enabling faster entry of potential treatments into first-in-human trials, explored how new and emerging tools and technologies may improve the efficiency of research, and considered mechanisms to facilitate a more effective and efficient development pipeline. There are several challenges to the current drug development pipeline for nervous system disorders. The fundamental etiology and pathophysiology of many nervous system disorders are unknown and the brain is inaccessible to study, making it difficult to develop accurate models. Patient heterogeneity is high, disease pathology can occur years to decades before becoming clinically apparent, and diagnostic and treatment biomarkers are lacking. In addition, the lack of validated targets, limitations related to the predictive validity of animal models - the extent to which the model predicts clinical efficacy - and regulatory barriers can also impede translation and drug development for nervous system disorders. Improving and Accelerating Therapeutic Development for Nervous System Disorders identifies avenues for moving directly from cellular models to human trials, minimizing the need for animal models to test efficacy, and discusses the potential benefits and risks of such an approach. This report is a timely discussion of opportunities to improve early drug development with a focus toward preclinical trials.

Rare diseases collectively affect millions of Americans of all ages, but developing drugs and medical devices to prevent, diagnose, and treat these conditions is challenging. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends implementing an integrated national strategy to promote rare diseases research and product development.

To explore the role of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in innovative drug development and its impact on patient access, the Board on Health Care Services and the Board on Health Sciences Policy of the National Academies jointly hosted a public workshop on July 24â€"25, 2019, in Washington, DC. Workshop speakers and participants discussed the ways in which federal investments in biomedical research are translated into innovative therapies and considered approaches to ensure that the public has affordable access to the resulting new drugs. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

On March 3-4, 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's Forum on Neuroscience and Nervous System Disorders held a workshop in Washington, DC, bringing together key stakeholders to discuss opportunities for improving the integrity, efficiency, and validity of clinical trials for nervous system disorders. Participants in the workshop represented a range of diverse perspectives, including individuals not normally associated with traditional clinical trials. The purpose of this workshop was to generate discussion about not only what is feasible now, but what may be possible with the implementation of cutting-edge technologies in the future.

"A lot of hard-won knowledge is laid out here in a brief but informative way. Every topic is well referenced, with citations from both the primary literature and relevant resources from the internet." Review from Nature Chemical Biology Written by the founders of the SPARK program at Stanford University, this book is a practical guide designed for professors, students and clinicians at academic research institutions who are interested in learning more about the drug development process and how to help their discoveries become the novel drugs of the future. Often many potentially transformative basic science discoveries are not pursued because they are deemed ‘too early’ to attract industry interest. There are simple, relatively cost-effective things that academic researchers can do to advance their findings to the point that they can be tested in the clinic or attract more industry interest. Each chapter broadly discusses an important topic in drug development, from preclinical work in assay design through clinical trial design, regulatory issues and marketing assessments. After the practical overview provided here, the reader is encouraged to consult more detailed texts on specific topics of interest. "I would actually welcome it if this book’s intended audience were broadened even more. Younger scientists starting out in the drug industry would benefit from reading it and getting some early exposure to parts of the process that they’ll eventually have to understand. Journalists covering the industry (especially the small startup companies) will find this book a good reality check for many an over-hopeful press release. Even advanced investors who might want to know what really happens in the labs will find information here that might otherwise be difficult to track down in such a concentrated form."

Advances in cancer research have led to an improved understanding of the molecular mechanisms underpinning the development of cancer and how the immune system responds to cancer. This influx of research has led to an increasing number and variety of therapies in the drug development pipeline, including targeted therapies and associated biomarker tests that can select which patients are most likely to respond, and immunotherapies that harness the body's immune system to destroy cancer cells. Compared with standard chemotherapies, these new cancer therapies may demonstrate evidence of benefit and clearer distinctions between efficacy and toxicity at an earlier stage of development. However, there is a concern that the traditional processes for cancer drug development, evaluation, and regulatory approval could impede or delay the use of these promising cancer treatments in clinical practice. This has led to a number of effortsâ€"by patient advocates, the pharmaceutical industry, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)â€"to accelerate the review of promising new cancer therapies, especially for cancers that currently lack effective treatments. However, generating the necessary data to confirm safety and efficacy during expedited drug development programs can present a unique set of challenges and opportunities. To explore this new landscape in cancer drug development, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine developed a workshop held in December 2016. This workshop convened cancer researchers, patient advocates, and representatives from industry, academia, and government to discuss challenges with traditional approaches to drug development, opportunities to improve the efficiency of drug development, and strategies to enhance the information available about a cancer therapy throughout its life cycle in order to improve its use in clinical practice. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

The focus of early drug development has been the submission of an Investigational New Drug application to regulatory agencies. Early Drug Development: Strategies and Routes to First-in-Human Trials guides drug development organizations in preparing and submitting an Investigational New Drug (IND) application. By explaining the nuts and bolts of preclinical development activities and their interplay in effectively identifying successful clinical candidates, the book helps pharmaceutical scientists determine what types of discovery and preclinical research studies are needed in order to support a submission to regulatory agencies.

Clinical trials are used to elucidate the most appropriate preventive, diagnostic, or treatment options for individuals with a given medical condition. Perhaps the most essential feature of a clinical trial is that it aims to use results based on a limited sample of research participants to see if the intervention is safe and effective or if it is comparable to a comparison treatment. Sample size is a crucial component of any clinical trial. A trial with a small number of research participants is more prone to variability and carries a considerable risk of failing to demonstrate the effectiveness of a given intervention when one really is present. This may occur in phase I (safety and pharmacologic profiles), II (pilot efficacy evaluation), and III (extensive assessment of safety and efficacy) trials. Although phase I and II studies may have smaller sample sizes, they usually have adequate statistical power, which is the committee's definition of a "large" trial. Sometimes a trial with eight participants may have adequate statistical power, statistical power being the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when the hypothesis is false. Small Clinical Trials assesses the current methodologies and the appropriate situations for the conduct of clinical trials with small sample sizes. This report assesses the published literature on various strategies such as (1) meta-analysis to combine disparate information from several studies including Bayesian techniques as in the confidence profile method and (2) other alternatives such as assessing therapeutic results in a single treated population (e.g., astronauts) by sequentially measuring whether the intervention is falling above or below a preestablished probability outcome range and meeting predesigned specifications as opposed to incremental improvement.

Randomized clinical trials are the primary tool for evaluating new medical interventions. Randomization provides for a fair comparison between treatment and control groups, balancing out, on average, distributions of known and unknown factors among the participants. Unfortunately, these studies often lack a substantial percentage of data. This missing data reduces the benefit provided by the randomization and introduces potential biases in the comparison of the treatment groups. Missing data can arise for a variety of reasons, including the inability or unwillingness of participants to meet appointments for evaluation. And in some studies, some or all of data collection ceases when participants discontinue study treatment. Existing guidelines for the design and conduct of clinical trials, and the analysis of the resulting data, provide only limited advice on how to handle missing data. Thus, approaches to the analysis of data with an appreciable amount of missing values tend to be ad hoc and variable. The Prevention and Treatment of Missing Data in Clinical Trials concludes that a more principled approach to design and analysis in the presence of missing data is both needed and possible. Such an approach needs to focus on two critical elements: (1) careful design and conduct to limit the amount and impact of missing data and (2) analysis that makes full use of information on all randomized participants and is based on careful attention to the assumptions about the nature of the missing data underlying estimates of treatment effects. In addition to the highest priority recommendations, the book offers more detailed recommendations on the conduct of clinical trials and techniques for analysis of trial data.