4.4 Review

Entering the era of computationally driven drug development

期刊

DRUG METABOLISM REVIEWS
卷 52, 期 2, 页码 283-298

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03602532.2020.1726944

关键词

In silico; drug development; artificial intelligence; modeling; drug discovery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Historically, failure rates in drug development are high; increased sophistication and investment throughout the process has shifted the reasons for attrition, but the overall success rates have remained stubbornly and consistently low. Only 8% of new entities entering clinical testing gain regulatory approval, indicating that significant obstacles still exist for efficient therapeutic development. The continued high failure rate can be partially attributed to the inability to link drug exposure with the magnitude of observed safety and efficacy-related pharmacodynamic (PD) responses; frequently, this is a result of nonclinical models exhibiting poor prediction of human outcomes across a wide range of disease conditions, resulting in faulty evaluation of drug toxicology and efficacy. However, the increasing quality and standardization of experimental methods in preclinical stages of testing has created valuable data sets within companies that can be leveraged to further improve the efficiency and accuracy of preclinical prediction for both pharmacokinetics (PK) and PD. Models of Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR), physiologically based pharmacokinetics (PBPK), and PK/PD relationships have also improved efficiency. Founded on a core understanding of biochemistry and physiological interactions of xenobiotics, these in silico methods have the potential to increase the probability of compound success in clinical trials. Integration of traditional computational methods with machine-learning approaches and existing internal pharma databases stands to make a fundamental impact on the speed and accuracy of predictions during the process of drug development and approval.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据