“It is time for us as a collective field to capitalize on the promise of innovation to advance therapeutic development,” said Bill Martin, global therapeutic area head of neuroscience for Janssen Research & Development. Compared with other therapeutic areas, developing novel therapeutics for central nervous system indications takes longer, has one of the lowest clinical trials success rates, and is associated with a lower likelihood of approval, he said (Thomas, 2016) (see Figure 2-1). This translates not only to fewer medicines for neurological and psychiatric disorders, but has also resulted in the “withering commitment over time” from the pharmaceutical industry, he added.
On the positive side, B. Martin said that small and mid-sized pharmaceutical companies have stepped in to fill the void in neuroscience drug development, and even some larger companies are returning. In 2018, he said, venture capital invested $1.5 billion into neuroscience drug development, which was second only to their investments in oncology.
Learning from past mistakes will not be enough to advance the field, said B. Martin.1 Rather, the field will need to embrace new technologies that facilitate a shift from categorical descriptions of disease based solely on clinical features to biologically defined patient populations based on neuropathophysiological understanding, he said. This will require multimodal data from clinical, biological, and genetic studies, as well as new methodological frameworks and approaches to analyze and interpret these data to create novel insights. He added that at every stage of disease, biomarkers are instrumental in unraveling disease complexity and heterogeneity.
For example, to advance therapeutic development for Alzheimer’s disease, B. Martin cited five components of the diagnostic pathway—(1) clinical concept, (2) pathological hallmarks, (3) genetics, (4) biomarkers, and (5) new technologies—that need to evolve iteratively to yield greater biologically based insight into the disease. Each aspect is improved on by the other components, and each refinement brings the field closer to a deeper understanding of the disease, better frameworks for research and development, and improved treatment paradigms where the promise of the right medicine for the right patient at the right time can be realized, said B. Martin. Basing therapeutics on novel mechanisms closely linked to the underlying pathophysiology of the disease, he said, may provide remission or even prevention of disease.
B. Martin identified three interconnected and self-reinforcing components of a strategy to address these challenges:
___________________
1 Bill Martin and Alicia Martin were both speakers at the workshop. To denote who made which comments, their first initial is included wherever they are attributed throughout this proceedings.
___________________
2 “Digital biomarkers are defined as objective, quantifiable physiological and behavioral data that are collected and measured by means of digital devices such as portables, wearables, implantables, or digestibles.” Source: https://www.karger.com/Journal/guidelines/271954 (accessed January 31, 2022).
B. Martin also called for improved coordination between discovery and development through better alignment of the research efforts of industry, academia, and governmental bodies. Partnerships and data sharing among these entities can have a dramatic and positive impact on research advances and are essential in the crafting and implementation of regulatory policies and guidelines, he said.
This page intentionally left blank.