4.6 Review

What's next in the pipeline

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 8, Issue 10, Pages 1972-1981

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02403.x

Keywords

clinical trials; immunosuppression; transplant

Funding

  1. Bristol Myers Squibb
  2. Pfizer
  3. Wyeth
  4. Novartis Roche
  5. Genzyme
  6. Astellas
  7. Genentech

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The first decade of the new millennium has been disappointing for transplant therapeutics: no new immunosuppression agents have been approved. Several high profile drugs and biologics failed the rigors of clinical trials or had disappointing preclinical results (FTY720, FK778, anti-CDI54, anti-IL15, anti-CD28, R3421). Several challenges face the industry and clinical investigators in bringing novel drugs to the clinic including the difficulty in targeting new endpoints for toxicities or chronic allograft disease since acute rejection has been reduced to below 15% as well as the Food and Drug Administration insistence of excluding the use of immunosuppression regimens embraced by the transplant community in control arms of clinical trials. Currently six new agents, 3 small molecules (ISA247, a semisynthetic analogue of cyclosporine; AEB071, a protein kinase C isoforms inhibitor; CP 690,550, a selective Janus kinase inhibitor) are in phase II trials and 3 biologics (belatacept, a second generation CTLA4Ig; efalizumab, a humanized antiCD11a [LFA1] monoclonal antibody; and alefacept, a LFA3-IgG1 fusion receptor protein) are in phase II/III clinical trials. The preclinical pipeline is not only full but promises to address previously neglected targets and fulfill unmet medical needs in transplant therapeutics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available