Decision Points in NCE Development PDF

Early Drug Discovery and Development
Guidelines: For Academic Researchers,

Collaborators, and Start-up Companies
Jeffrey Strovel,1 Sitta Sittampalam,2 Nathan P. Coussens,2 Michael Hughes,3
James Inglese,2 Andrew Kurtz,4 Ali Andalibi,4 Lavonne Patton,5 Chris Austin,6
Michael Baltezor,3 Michael Beckloff,5 Michael Weingarten,4 and Scott Weir3
Created: May 1, 2012; Updated: July 1, 2016.
Abstract
Setting up drug discovery and development programs in academic, non-profit and other
life science research companies requires careful planning. This chapter contains guidelines
to develop therapeutic hypotheses, target and pathway validation, proof of concept
criteria and generalized cost analyses at various stages of early drug discovery. Various
decision points in developing a New Chemical Entity (NCE), description of the
exploratory Investigational New Drug (IND) and orphan drug designation, drug
repurposing and drug delivery technologies are also described and geared toward those
who intend to develop new drug discovery and development programs.
Note: The estimates and discussions below are modeled for an oncology drug New
Molecular Entity (NME) and repurposed drugs. For other disease indications these
estimates might be significantly higher or lower.
1 ConverGene, LLC, Gaithersburg, MD. 2 National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
(NCATS), National Institutes for Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD. 3 Institute for Advancing Medical
Innovation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS. 4 Small Business Innovation Research, National
Cancer Institute, Washington, DC. 5 Beckloff Associates, Inc. Overland Park, KS. 6 NIH Chemical
Genomics Center, Bethesda, MD.
NLM Citation: Strovel J, Sittampalam S, Coussens NP, et al. Early Drug Discovery and
Development Guidelines: For Academic Researchers, Collaborators, and Start-up Companies.
2012 May 1 [Updated 2016 Jul 1]. In: Sittampalam GS, Coussens NP, Brimacombe K, et al.,
editors. Assay Guidance Manual [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): Eli Lilly & Company and the National
Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; 2004-.
All Assay Guidance Manual content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0),
which permits copying, distribution, transmission, and adaptation of the work, provided the
original work is properly cited and not used for commercial purposes. Any altered, transformed,
or adapted form of the work may only be distributed under the same or similar license to this
one.
2 Assay Guidance Manual
Background
Medical innovation in America today calls for new collaboration models that span
government, academia, industry and disease philanthropy. Barriers to translation and
ultimate commercialization will be lowered by bringing best practices from industry into
academic settings, and not only by training a new generation of 'translational' scientists
prepared to move a therapeutic idea forward into proof of concept in humans, but also by
developing a new cadre of investigators skilled in regulatory science.
As universities begin to focus on commercializing research, there is an evolving paradigm
for drug discovery and early development focused innovation within the academic
enterprise. The innovation process -- moving from basic research to invention and to
commercialization and application -- will remain a complex and costly journey. New
funding mechanisms, the importance of collaborations within and among institutions, the
essential underpinnings of public-private partnerships that involve some or all sectors, the
focus of the new field of regulatory science, and new appropriate bridges between federal
health and regulatory agencies all come to bear in this endeavor.
We developed these guidelines to assist academic researchers, collaborators and start-up
companies in advancing new therapies from the discovery phase into early drug
development, including evaluation of therapies in human and/or clinical proof of concept.
This chapter outlines necessary steps required to identify and properly validate drug
targets, define the utility of employing probes in the early discovery phase, medicinal
chemistry, lead optimization, and preclinical proof of concept strategies, as well as address
drug delivery needs through preclinical proof of concept. Once a development candidate
has been identified, the guidelines provide an overview of human and/or clinical proof of
concept enabling studies required by regulatory agencies prior to initiation of clinical
trials. Additionally, the guidelines help to ensure quality project plans are developed and
projects are advanced consistently. We also outline the expected intellectual property
required at key decision points and the process by which decisions may be taken to move
a project forward.
Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to define:
• Three practical drug discovery and early development paths to advancing new
cancer therapies to early stage clinical trials, including:
1. Discovery and early development of a New Chemical Entity (NCE)
2. Discovery of new, beneficial activity currently marketed drugs possess
against novel drug targets, also referred to as “drug repurposing”
3. Application of novel platform technology to the development of improved
delivery of currently marketed drugs
• Within each of the three strategies, decision points have been identified along the
commercial value chain and the following concepts have been addressed:
Early Drug Discovery and Development Guidelines 3
⚬ Key data required at each decision point, targets and expectations required to
support further development
⚬ An estimate of the financial resources needed to generate the data at each
decision point
⚬ Opportunities available to outsource activities to optimally leverage strengths
within the institution
⚬ Integration of these activities with the intellectual property management
process potential decision points which:
▪ Offer opportunities to initiate meaningful discussions with regulatory
agencies to define requirements for advancement of new cancer
therapies to human evaluation
▪ Afford opportunities to license technologies to university start-up,
biotechnology and major pharmaceutical companies
▪ Define potential role(s) the National Institutes of Health SBIR
programs may play in advancing new cancer therapies along the drug
discovery and early development path
Scope
The scope of drug discovery and early drug development within the scope of these
guidelines spans target identification through human (Phase I) and/or clinical (Phase
IIa) proof of concept. This chapter describes an approach to drug discovery and
development for the treatment, prevention, and control of cancer. The guidelines and
decision points described herein may serve as the foundation for collaborative projects
with other organizations in multiple therapeutic areas.
Assumptions
1. These guidelines are being written with target identification as the initial decision
point, although the process outlined here applies to a project initiated at any of the
subsequent points.
2. The final decision point referenced in this chapter is human and/or clinical proof
of concept. Although the process for new drug approval is reasonably well defined,
it is very resource intensive and beyond the focus of most government, academic,
and disease philanthropy organizations conducting drug discovery and early drug
development activities.
3. The decision points in this chapter are specific to the development of a drug for the
treatment of relapsed or refractory late stage cancer patients. Many of the same
criteria apply to the development of drugs intended for other indications and
therapeutic areas, but each disease should be approached with a logical
customization of this plan. Development of compounds for the prevention and
control of cancer would follow a more conservative pathway as the benefit/risk
evaluation for these compounds would be different. When considering prevention
of a disease one is typically treating patients at risk, but before the disease has
developed in individuals that are otherwise healthy. The development criteria for
these types of compounds would be more rigorous initially and would typically
include a full nonclinical development program to support the human
studies. Similarly, compounds being developed to control cancer suggest that the
patients may have a prolonged life expectation such that long term toxicity must be
fully evaluated before exposing a large patient population to the compound. The
emphasis of the current chapter is on the development of compounds for the
treatment of late stage cancer patients.
4. Human and/or clinical proof of concept strategies will differ depending upon the
intent of the product (treatment, prevention, or control). The concepts and
strategies described in this chapter can be modified for the development of a drug
for prevention or control of multiple diseaes.
5. The cost estimates and decision points are specific to the development of a small
molecule drug. Development of large molecules will require the evaluation of
additional criteria and may be very specific to the nature of the molecule under
development.
6. This plan is written to describe the resources required at each decision point and
does not presume that licensing will occur only at the final decision point. It is
incumbent upon the stakeholders involved to decide the optimal point at which
the technology should move outside their institution.
7. The plan described here does not assume that the entire infrastructure necessary to
generate the data underlying each decision criterion is available at any single
institution. The estimates of financial resource requirements are based on an
assumption that these services can be purchased from an organization (or funded
through a collaborator) with the necessary equipment, instrumentation, and
trained personnel to conduct the studies.
8. The costs associated with the tasks in the development plan are based on the
experiences of the authors. It is reasonable to assume that variability in the costs
and duration of specific data-generating activities will depend upon the nature of
the target and molecule under development.
Definitions
At Risk Initiation – The decision by the project team to begin activities that do not
directly support the next unmet decision point, but will instead support a subsequent
decision point. At Risk Initiation is sometimes recommended to decrease the overall
development time.
Commercialization Point – In this context, the authors use the term to describe the point
at which a commercial entity is involved to participate in the development of the drug
product. This most commonly occurs through a direct licensing arrangement between the
university and an organization with the resources to continue the development of the
product.
Counter-screen – A screen performed in parallel with or after the primary screen. The
assay used in the counter-screen is developed to identify compounds that have the
potential to interfere with the assay used in the primary screen (the primary assay).
Counter-screens can also be used to eliminate compounds that possess undesirable
properties, for example, a counter-screen for cytotoxicity (1).
Cumulative Cost – This describes the total expenditure by the project team from project
initiation to the point at which the project is either completed or terminated.
Decision Point1 – The latest moment at which a predetermined course of action is
initiated. Project advancement based on decision points balances the need to conserve
scarce development resources with the requirement to develop the technology to a
commercialization point as quickly as possible. Failure to meet the criteria listed for the
following decision points will lead to a No Go recommendation.
False positive – Generally related to the ‘‘specificity’’ of an assay. In screening, a
compound may be active in an assay but inactive toward the biological target of interest.
For this chapter, this does not include activity due to spurious, non-reproducible activity
(such as lint in a sample that causes light-scatter or spurious fluorescence and other
detection related artifacts). Compound interference that is reproducible is a common
cause of false positives, or target-independent activity (1).
Go Decision – The project conforms to key specifications and criteria and will continue
to the next decision point.
High-Throughput Screen (HTS) – A large-scale automated experiment in which large
libraries (collections) of compounds are tested for activity against a biological target or
pathway. It can also be referred to as a “screen” for short (1).
Hits – A term for putative activity observed during the primary high-throughput screen,
usually defined by percent activity relative to control compounds (1).
Chemical Lead Compound – A member of a biologically and pharmacologically active
compound series with desired potency, selectivity, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic
and toxicity properties that can advance to IND-enabling studies for clinical candidate
selection.
Incremental Cost – A term used to describe the additional cost of activities that support
decision criteria for any given decision point, independent of other activities that may
have been completed or initiated to support decision criteria for any other decision point.
Library – A collection of compounds that meet the criteria for screening against disease
targets or pathways of interest (1).
1 Behind each Decision Point are detailed decision-making criteria defined in detail later in this
chapter
New Chemical Entity (NCE) – A molecule emerging from the discovery process that has
not previously been evaluated in clinical trials.
No Go Decision – The project does not conform to key specifications and criteria and will
not continue.
Off-Target Activity – Compound activity that is not directed toward the biological target
of interest but can give a positive read-out, and thus can be classified as an active in the
assay (1).
Orthogonal Assay – An assay performed following (or in parallel to) the primary assay to
differentiate between compounds that generate false positives from those compounds that
are genuinely active against the target (1).
Primary Assay – The assay used for the high-throughput screen (1).
Qualified Task – A task that should be considered, but not necessarily required to be
completed at a suggested point in the project plan. The decision is usually guided by
factors outside the scope of this chapter. Such tasks will be denoted in this chapter by
enclosing the name of the tasks in parentheses in the Gantt chart, e.g. (qualified task).
Secondary Assay – An assay used to test the activity of compounds found active in the
primary screen (and orthogonal assay) using robust assays of relevant biology. Ideally,
these are of at least medium-throughput to allow establishment of structure-activity
relationships between the primary and secondary assays and establish a biologically
plausible mechanism of action (1).
Section 1 Discovery and Development of New Chemical Entities

The Gantt chart (Table 1) illustrates the scope of this chapter. The left-hand portion of the
chart includes the name of each decision point as well as the incremental cost for the
activities that support that task. The black bars on the right-hand portion of the chart
represent the duration of the summary task (combined criteria) to support a decision
point as well as the cumulative cost for the project at the completion of that activity. A
similar layout applies to each of the subsequent figures; however, the intent of these
figures is to articulate the activities that underlie each decision point.
The submission of regulatory documents, for the purpose of this example, reflects the
preparation of an Investigational New Drug (IND) application in Common Technical
Document (CTD) format. The CTD format is required for preparation of regulatory
documents in Europe (according to the Investigational Medicinal Product Dossier
[IMPD]), Canada for investigational applications (Clinical Trial Application) and is
accepted by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for INDs. The CTD
format is required for electronic CTD (eCTD) submissions. The advantages of the CTD
are that it facilitates global harmonization and lays the foundation upon which the
marketing application can be prepared. The sections of the CTD are prepared early in
development (at the IND stage) and are then updated, as needed, until submission of the
marketing application.
8
Table 1: Composite Gantt Chart Roll-up Representing Target ID through Clinical POC
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9
Task Name Cost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
#1 Target
Identification $200,000 $200,000
#2 Target
Validation $268,500 $468,500
#3
Identification
of Actives $472,500 $941,000
#4
Confirmation
of Hits $522,000 $1,463,000
#5
Identification
of Chemical
Lead $353,300 $1,816,300
#6 Selection
of Optimized
Chemical
Lead $302,500 $2,118,800
#7 Selection
of a
Development
Candidate $275,000 $2,393,800
#8 Pre-IND
Meeting with
FDA $37,000 $2,430,800
#9 File IND $780,000 $3,210,800
#10 Human
Proof of
Concept $1,000,000 $4,210,800
#11 Clinical
Proof of
Concept $5,000,000 $9,210,800
Assay Guidance Manual
Decision Point #1 - Target Identification

Target-based drug discovery begins with identifying the function of a possible therapeutic
target and its role in the disease (2). There are two criteria that justify advancement of a
project beyond target identification. These are:
• Previously published (peer-reviewed) data on a particular disease target pathway or
target, OR
• Evidence of new biology that modulates a disease pathway or target of interest
Resource requirements to support this initial stage of drug discovery can vary widely as
the novelty of the target increases. In general, the effort required to elucidate new biology
can be significant. Most projects will begin with these data in hand, whether from a new
or existing biology. We estimate that an additional investment might be needed to support
the target identification data that might already exist (Table 2). However, as reflected in
Table 2, if additional target validation activities proceed at risk, the total cost of the project
at a “No Go” decision will reach approximately $468,500 (estimated).
Table 2: Target Identification and Target Validation
Year 1 Year 2
Task Name Cost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
#1 Target Identification $200,000 $200,000
Previously published data on disease target $1,000
New biology that modulates a disease $199,000
#2 Target Validation $268,500 $468,500
Known molecules modulate target $100,000
Type of target has a history of success $1,000
Genetic confirmation $80,000
Availability of known animal models $7,500
Low throughput target validation assay that represents
biology $70,000
Intellectual property of the target $7,500
Marketability of the target $2,500
#3 Identification of Actives $472,500 $941,000
Decision Point #2 - Target Validation

Target validation requires a demonstration that a molecular target is directly involved in a
disease process, and that modulation of the target is likely to have a therapeutic effect (2).
There are seven criteria for evaluation prior to advancement beyond target validation.
These are:
• Known molecules modulate the target
• Type of target has a history of success (e.g. Ion channel, GCPR, nuclear receptor,
transcription factor, cell cycle, enzyme, etc.)
• Genetic confirmation (e.g. Knock-out, siRNA, shRNA, SNP, known mutations, etc.)
• Availability of known animal models
• Low-throughput target validation assay that represents biology
• Intellectual property of the target
• Market potential of the disease/target space
The advancement criteria supporting target validation can usually be completed in
approximately 12 months by performing most activities in parallel. In an effort to reduce
the overall development timeline, we recommend starting target validation activities at
risk (prior to a “Go” decision on target identification). Table 2 illustrates the dependencies
between the criteria supporting the first two decision points. The incremental cost of the
activities supporting decision-making criteria for target validation is approximately
$268,500. However, a decision to initiate target validation prior to completion of target
initiation (recommended) and subsequent initiation of identification of actives at risk
would lead to a total project cost (estimate) of $941,000 if a “No Go” decision were
reached at the conclusion of target validation.
Decision Point #3 - Identification of Actives

An active is defined as a molecule that shows significant biological activity in a validated
screening assay that represents the disease biology and physiology. By satisfying the
advancement criteria listed below for identification of actives, the project team will begin
to define new composition of matter by linking a chemical structure to modulation of the
target. There are five (or six if invention disclosure occurs at this stage) criteria for
evaluation at the identification of actives decision point. These are:
• Acquisition of screening reagents
• Primary HTS assay development and validation
• Compound library available to screen
• Actives criteria defined
• Perform high-throughput screen
• (Composition of Matter invention disclosure)
The advancement criteria supporting identification of actives can be completed in
approximately 12 months in most cases by performing activities in parallel. Table 3
illustrates the dependencies and timing associated with a decision to begin activities
supporting confirmation of hits prior to a “Go” decision on decision point #3. The
incremental cost associated with decision point #3 is estimated to be $472,500 (assuming
the assay is transferred and validated without difficulty). The accumulated project cost
associated with a “No Go” decision at this point is estimated to be $1.46 million. This
assumes an at risk initiation of activities supporting decision point #4.
Table 3: Identification of Actives

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Task Name Cost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
#2 Target Validation $268,500 $468,500
Acquisition of screening reagents $100,000
Primary HTS assay development and
validation $150,000
Compound library available to screen $150,000
Actives criteria defined $2,500
Perform high-throughput screen $70,000
(Composition of Matter invention
disclosure) Variable
#4 Confirmation of Hits $522,000 $1,463,000
Decision Point #4 - Confirmation of Hits

A hit is defined as consistent activity of a molecule (with confirmed purity and identity) in
a biochemical and/or cell based secondary assay. Additionally, this is the point at which
the project team will make an assessment of the molecular class of each of the hits. There
are six (or seven if initial invention disclosure occurs at this stage) criteria for evaluation
at the confirmation of hits decision point. These are:
• Confirmation based on repeat assay, Concentration Response Curve (CRC)
• Secondary assays for specificity, selectivity, and mechanisms
• Confirmed identity and purity
• Cell-based assay confirmation of biochemical assay when appropriate
• Druggability of the chemical class (reactivity, stability, solubility, synthetic
feasibility)
• Chemical Intellectual Property (IP)
• (Composition of Matter invention disclosure)
The advancement criteria supporting decision point #4 can usually be completed in
approximately 18 months, depending upon the existence of cell-based assays for
confirmation. If the assays need to be developed or validated at the screening lab, we
recommend starting that activity at risk concurrent with the CRC and mechanistic assays.
Table 4 represents the dependencies and timing associated with the decision to begin
activities supporting confirmation of hits prior to a “Go” decision on decision point #3.
The incremental cost of confirmation of hits is $522,000. The accumulated project cost at
a “No Go” decision on decision point #4 can be as high as $1.8 million if a proceed at risk
decision is made on identification of a chemical lead (decision point #5).
Table 4: Confirmation of Hits

Confirmation based on repeat assay,
Concentration Response Curve (CRC) $50,000
Secondary assays for specificity,
selectivity, and mechanisms $400,000
Confirmed identity and purity $10,000
Cell-based assay confirmation of
biochemical assay when appropriate $50,000
Druggability of the chemical class
(reactivity, stability, solubility, synthetic
feasibility) $2,000
Chemical Intellectual Property (IP)
(prior art search, med chemist driven) $10,000
(Composition of Matter invention
disclosure) Variable
#5 Identification of Chemical Lead $353,300 $1,816,300
Decision Point #5 - Identification of Chemical Lead

A chemical lead is defined as a synthetically feasible, stable, and drug-like molecule active
in primary and secondary assays with acceptable specificity and selectivity for the target.
This requires definition of the Structure-Activity Relationship (SAR) as well as
determination of synthetic feasibility and preliminary evidence of in vivo efficacy and
target engagement (Note: projects at this stage might be eligible for Phase I SBIR).
Characteristics of a chemical lead are:
• SAR defined
• Drugability (preliminary toxicity, hERG, Ames)
• Synthetic feasibility
• Select mechanistic assays
• In vitro assessment of drug resistance and efflux potential
• Evidence of in vivo efficacy of chemical class
• PK/Toxicity of chemical class known based on preliminary toxicity or in silico
studies
In order to decrease the number of compounds that fail in the drug development process,
a druggability assessment is often conducted. This assessment is important in
transforming a compound from a lead molecule into a drug. For a compound to be
considered druggable it should have the potential to bind to a specific target; however,
also important is the compound’s pharmacokinetic profile regarding absorption,

distribution, metabolism, and excretion. Other assays will evaluate the potential toxicity
of the compound in screens such as the Ames test and cytotoxicity assay. When
compounds are being developed for indications where the predicted patient survival is
limited to a few years, it is important to note that a positive result in the cytotoxicity
assays would not necessarily limit the development of the compound and other
drugability factors (such as the pharmacokinetic profile) would be more relevant for
determining the potential for development.
The advancement criteria supporting decision point #5 will most likely be completed in
approximately 12-18 months due to the concurrent activities. We recommend that SAR
and drugability assessments begin at risk prior to a “Go” on confirmation of hits. Synthetic
feasibility and PK assessment will begin at the completion of decision point #4. The cost of
performing the recommended activities to support identification of a chemical lead is
estimated to be $353,300 (Table 5). The accumulated project costs at the completion of
decision point #5 are estimated to be $2.1 million including costs associated with at risk
initiation of activities to support decision point #6.
Table 5: Identification of a Chemical Lead
SAR Defined $167,900
Specificity $20,000
Selectivity $40,000
Drugability $107,900
Solubility $10,000
Permeability n=50 $15,000
Metabolic stability n=30 (human,
murine, rat) $40,000
In vitro toxicology n=5 $25,000
hERG (QT prolongation) n=10 $7,500
Mini Ames (mutagenicity) n=3 $5,400
Cytotoxicity assays n=3 $5,000
Synthetic feasibility $6,500
Number of steps $2,500
Occupational health (starting materials
and reagents) $2,500
Table 5 continues on next page...
Table 5 continued from previous page.

Cost $1,000
Availability of starting materials and
reagents $500
Select mechanistic assays n=10 $25,000
No relative drug resistance issues n=10 $6,000
Evidence of in vivo efficacy of chemical
class (PD Study) $10,000
PK feasibility of chemical class $10,000
Provisional application -composition of
matter $20,000
#6 Selection of Optimized Chemical
Lead $302,500 $2,118,800
Decision Point #6 - Selection of Optimized Chemical Lead

An optimized chemical lead is a molecule that will enter IND-enabling GLP studies and
GMP supplies will be produced for clinical trials. We will describe the activities that
support GLP and GMP development in the next section. This section focuses on the
decision process to identify those molecules (Note: projects at this stage may be eligible
for Phase II SBIR). Criteria for selecting optimized candidates are listed below:
• Acceptable in vivo PK and toxicity
• Feasible formulation
• In vivo preclinical efficacy (properly powered)
• Dose Range Finding (DRF) pilot toxicology
• Process chemistry assessment of scale up feasibility
• Regulatory and marketing assessments
The advancement criteria supporting decision point #6 can be completed in
approximately 12-15 months. As indicated above, we recommend commencing activities
to support selection of an optimized chemical lead prior to a “Go” decision on decision
point #5. In particular, the project team should place emphasis on 6.3 (in vivo preclinical
efficacy). A strong lead will have clearly defined pharmacodynamic endpoints at the
preclinical stage and will set the stage for strong indicators of efficacy at decision point
#11 (clinical proof of concept). The cost of performing the recommended activities to
support decision point #6 is estimated to be $302,500 (Table 6). The accumulated project
costs at the completion of decision point #6 are estimated to be $2.4 million, including
costs associated with at risk initiation of activities to support decision point #7.
Table 6: Selection of an Optimized Chemical Lead

#6 Selection of Optimized Chemical
Lead $302,500 $2,118,800
Acceptable in vivo PK $32,500
Route of administration $10,000
Bioavailability $7,500
Clearance $7,500
Drug distribution $7,500
Feasible formulation $15,000
In vivo preclinical efficacy (properly
powered) $165,000
Tumor size and volume $40,000
Biomarkers $25,000
Survival $30,000
Target validation $30,000
Dose frequencey $40,000
Dose Range Finding (DRF) pilot
toxicology $40,000
Process chemistry assessment of scale
up feasibility $50,000
Regulatory and marketing assessments Variable
#7 Selection of a Development
Candidate $275,000 $2,393,800
Decision Point #7 - Selection of a Development Candidate

A development candidate is a molecule for which the intent is to begin Phase I evaluation.
Prior to submission of an IND, the project team must evaluate the likelihood of
successfully completing the IND-enabling work that will be required as part of the
regulatory application for first in human testing. Prior to decision point #7, many projects
will advance as many as 7-10 molecules. Typically, most pharma and biotech companies
will select a single development candidate with one designated backup. Here, we
recommend that the anointed “Development Candidate” be the molecule that rates the
best on the six criteria below. In many cases, a Pre-IND meeting with the regulatory
agency might be considered. A failure to address all of these by any molecule should
warrant a “No Go” decision by the project team. The following criteria should be
minimally met for a development candidate:
• Acceptable PK (with a validated bioanalytical method)

• Demonstrated in vivo efficacy/activity
• Acceptable safety margin (toxicity in rodents or dogs when appropriate)
• Feasibility of GMP manufacture
• Acceptable drug interaction profile
• Well-developed clinical endpoints
The advancement criteria supporting decision point #7 are estimated to be completed in
12 months, but may be compressed to as little as 6 months. The primary rate limit among
the decision criteria is the determination of the safety margin, as this can be affected by
the formulation and dosing strategies selected earlier. In this case, the authors have
presented a project that includes a 7-day repeat dose in rodents to demonstrate an
acceptable safety margin. The incremental costs of activities to support the selection of a
development candidate (as shown) are estimated to be approximately $275,000. The
accumulated project cost at this point is approximately $2.4 million to complete decision
points #6, #7, and the FDA Pre-IND meeting (Table 7). If the development plan requires a
longer toxicology study at this point, costs can be higher (approximately $190,000 for a
14-day repeat dose study in rats and $225,000 in dogs).
Table 7: Selection of a Development Candidate
Year 4 Year 5
Task Name Cost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
#6 Selection of Optimized Chemical Lead $302,500 $2,118,800
#7 Selection of a Development Candidate $275,000 $2,393,800
Acceptable PK (with a validated bioanalytical method) $30,000
Well-developed clinical endpoints $40,000
Demonstrated in vivo efficacy/activity $50,000
Acceptable safety margin (toxicity in rodents or dogs
when appropriate) $125,000
GMP manufacture feasibility $25,000
Acceptable drug interaction profile $5,000
#8 Pre-IND Meeting with FDA (for non-oncology
projects only) $37,000 $2,430,800
Decision Point #8 - Pre-IND Meeting with the FDA

Pre-IND advice from the FDA may be requested for issues related to the data needed to
support the rationale for testing a drug in humans; the design of nonclinical
pharmacology, toxicology, and drug activity studies, including design and potential uses
of any proposed treatment studies in animal models; data requirements for an IND
application; initial drug development plans, and regulatory requirements for
demonstrating safety and efficacy (1). We recommend that this meeting take place after
the initiation, but before the completion of tasks to support decision point #7 (selection of
a development candidate). The feedback from the FDA might necessitate adjustments to
the project plan. Making these changes prior to candidate selection will save time and
money. Pre-IND preparation will require the following:
• Prepare pre-IND meeting request to the FDA, including specific questions
• Prepare pre-IND meeting package, which includes adequate information for the
FDA to address the specific questions (clinical plan, safety assessments summary,
CMC plan, etc.)
• Prepare the team for the pre-IND meeting
• Conduct pre-IND meeting with the FDA
• Adjust project plan to address the FDA comments
• Target product profile
The advancement criteria supporting decision point #8 should be completed in 12
months. We recommend preparing the pre-IND meeting request approximately 3 to 6
months prior to selection of a development candidate (provided that the data supporting
that decision point are promising). The cost of performing the recommended activities to
support pre-IND preparation #8 is estimated to be $37,000.
Decision Point #9 - Preparation and Submission of an IND Application

The decision to submit an IND application presupposes that all of the components of the
application have been addressed. The largest expense associated with preparation of the
IND is related to the CMC activities (manufacture and release of GMP clinical supplies).
A “Go” decision is contingent upon all of the requirements for the IND having been
addressed and that the regulatory agency agrees with the clinical plan. (Note: projects at
this stage may be eligible for SBIR BRIDGE awards). The following criteria should be
addressed in addition to addressing comments from the pre-IND meeting:
• Well-developed clinical plan
• Acceptable clinical dosage form
• Acceptable preclinical drug safety profile
• Clear IND regulatory path
• Human Proof of Concept (HPOC)/Clinical Proof of Concept (CPOC) plan is
acceptable to regulatory agency (pre-IND meeting)
• Reevaluate IP positions
The advancement criteria supporting decision point #9 are estimated to be completed in
12 months, but might be compressed to as little as 6 months if necessary. We recommend
initiating “at risk” as long as there is confidence that a qualified development candidate is
emerging before completion of decision point #7 and the plan remains largely unaltered
after the pre-IND meeting (decision point #8). The incremental costs of completing
decision point #9 are estimated to be $780,000. The accumulated project cost at this point
will be approximately $3.2 million (Table 8).
Table 8: Submit IND Application

Year 5
Task Name Cost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
#8 Pre-IND Meeting with FDA (for non-oncology projects only) $37,000 $2,430,800
#9 File IND $780,000 $3,210,800
Acceptable clinical dosage form $360,000
Delivery, reconstitution, practicality $30,000
stability (at least one year) $80,000
GMP quality $250,000
Acceptible preclinical drug safety profile $350,000
Safety index (receptor profiling, safety panels) $30,000
Dose response (PK) $20,000
Safety pharmacology $300,000
Clear IND regulatory path $30,000
HPOC/CPOC plan is acceptible to regulatory agency $40,000
Decision Point #10 - Human Proof of Concept

Most successful Phase I trials in oncology require 12-21 months for completion, due to
very restrictive enrollment criteria in these studies in some cases. There is no “at risk”
initiation of Phase I; therefore, the timeline cannot be shortened in that manner. The most
important factors in determining the length of a Phase I study are a logically written
clinical protocol and an available patient population. A “Go” decision clearly rests on the
safety of the drug, but many project teams will decide not to proceed if there is not at least
some preliminary indication of efficacy during Phase I (decision point #10, below).
Proceeding to Phase II trials will depend on:
• IND clearance
• Acceptable Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD)
• Acceptable Dose Response (DR)
• Evidence of human pharmacology
• Healthy volunteer relevance
We estimate the incremental cost of an oncology Phase I study will be approximately $1
million. This can increase significantly if additional patients are required to demonstrate
MTD, DR, pharmacology and/or efficacy. Our estimate is based on a 25 patient
(outpatient) study completed in 18 months. The accumulated project cost at completion
of decision point #10 will be approximately $4.2 million (Table 9).
Table 9: Human Proof of Concept

#9 File IND $780,000 $3,210,800
#10 Human Proof of Concept $1,000,000 $4,210,800
IND/CTA clearance $242,500
Acceptable Maximum Tolerated Dose
(MTD) $242,500
Acceptable Dose Response (DR) $242,500
Evidence of human pharmacology $242,500
Healthy volunteer relevance $30,000
Decision Point #11: Clinical Proof of Concept

With acceptable Dose Ranging and Maximum Tolerable Dose having been defined during
Phase I, in Phase II the project team will attempt to statistically demonstrate efficacy.
More specifically, the outcome of Phase II should reliably predict the likelihood of success
in Phase III randomized trials.
• Meeting the IND objectives
• Acceptable human PK/PD profile
• Safety and tolerance assessments
We estimate the incremental cost of an oncology Phase IIa study will be approximately
$5.0 million (Table 10). This cost is largely dependent on the number of patients required
and the number of centers involved. Our estimate is based on 150 outpatients with studies
completed in 24 months. The accumulated project cost at the completion of decision point
#11 will be approximately $9.2 million (Table 10).
Table 10: Decision Point #11 in Detail
Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9
Task Name Cost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
#10 Human Proof
of Concept $1,000,000 $4,210,800
#11 Clinical Proof
of Concept (n=2) $5,000,000 $9,210,800
IND/CTA clearance $500,000
Acceptable PK/PD
profile $500,000

Task Name Cost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Evidence of
pharmacology $2,500,000
Efficacy $1,250,000
Direct and indirect
biomarkers $1,250,000
Safety and tolerance
assessments $1,500,000
Section 2. Repurposing of Marketed Drugs

Drug repurposing and rediscovery development projects frequently seek to employ the
505(b)(2) drug development strategy. This strategy leverages studies conducted and data
generated by the innovator firm that is available in the published literature, in product
monographs, or product labeling. Improving the quality of drug development plans will
reduce the time of 505(b)(2) development cycles, and reduce the time and effort required
by the FDA during the NDA review process. Drug repurposing projects seek a new
indication in a different patient population and perhaps a different formulated drug
product than what is currently described on the product label. By leveraging existing
nonclinical data and clinical safety experience, sponsors have the opportunity to design
and execute novel, innovative clinical trials to characterize safety and efficacy in a
different patient population. The decision points for drug repurposing are summarized in
Table 11.
Table 11: Summary of Decision Points for Drug Repurposing
Year 1 Year 2
Decision
Points Cost M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22 M23 M24
#1
Identification
of Actives $500,000 $500,000
#2
Confirmation
of Hits $205,000 $705,000
#3 Initial Gap
Analysis/
Development
Plan $250,000 $955,000
#4 Clinical
Formulation
Development $100,000 $1,055,000
#5 Preclinical
Early Drug Discovery and Development Guidelines
Safety Data
Package $800,000 $1,855,000
#6 Clinical
Supplies
Manufacture $500,000 $2,355,000
#7 IND
Preparation
and
Submission $500,000 $2,855,000
#8 Human
Proof of
Concept $1,000,000 $3,855,000
21
Decision Point #1: Identification of Actives

For drug repurposing, actives are identified as follows (Table 12):
• Acquisition of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) for screening
• Primary HTS assay development, validation
• Actives criteria defined
• Perform HTS
• (Submit invention disclosure and consider use patent)
Table 12: Identification of Actives
Year 1
Decision Point Cost M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12
Acquisition of Active
Pharmaceutical Ingredients
(API) for screening Variable
Primary HTS assay
development, validation Variable
Actives criteria defined Variable
Perform high-throughput
screen Variable
(Submit invention disclosure
and consider use patent) Variable
#2 Confirmation of Hits $205,000 $705,000
Decision Point #2: Confirmation of Hits

Hits are confirmed as follows for a drug repurposing project (Table 13):
• Confirmation based on repeat assay, CRC
• Secondary assays for specificity, selectivity, and mechanisms
• Cell-based assay confirmation of biochemical assay when appropriate
• (Submit invention disclosure and consider use patent)
Table 13: Confirmation of Hits
Year 1
Year 1
Confirmation based on repeat
assay, concentration response
curve (CRC) Variable
Secondary assays for
specificity, selectivity, and
mechanisms Variable
Cell-based assay confirmation
of biochemical assay when
appropriate Variable
and consider use patent) Variable
#3 Initial Gap Analysis/
Development Plan $250,000 $955,000
Decision Point #3: Gap Analysis/Development Plan

When considering the 505(b)(2) NDA approach, it is important to understand what
information is available to support the proposed indication and what additional
information might be needed. The development path is dependent upon the proposed
indication, change in formulation, route, and dosing regimen. The gap analysis/
development plan that is prepared will take this information into account in order to
determine what studies might be needed prior to submission of an IND and initiating
first-in-man studies. A thorough search of the literature is important in order to capture
information available to satisfy the data requirements for the IND. Any gaps identified
would need to be filled with studies conducted by the sponsor. A pre-IND meeting with
the FDA will allow the sponsor to present their plan to the FDA and gain acceptance prior
to submission of the IND and conducting the first-in-man study (Table 14).
• CMC program strategy
• Preclinical program strategy
• Clinical proof of concept strategy
• Draft clinical protocol design
• Pre-IND meeting with the FDA
• Commercialization/marketing strategy and target product profile
Table 14: Gap Analysis/Development Plan
Year 1
Year 1
#3 Initial Gap Analysis/
Development Plan $250,000 $955,000
CMC program strategy Variable
Preclinical program strategy Variable
Clinical proof of concept
strategy Variable
Draft clinical protocol design Variable
Pre-IND meeting with FDA Variable
Commercialization/marketing
strategy and target product
profile Variable
#4 Clinical Formulation
Development $100,000 $1,055,000
Decision Point #4: Clinical Formulation Development

The clinical formulation development will include the following (Table 15):
• Prototype development
• Analytical methods development
• Prototype stability
• Prototype selection
• Clinical supplies release specification
• (Submit invention disclosure on novel formulation)
Table 15: Clinical Formulation Development
Year 1
#3 Final Development Plan $250,000 $955,000
#4 Clinical Formulation
Development $100,000 $1,055,000
Prototype development Variable
Analytical methods
development Variable
Prototype stability Variable
Prototype selection Variable
Year 1
Clinical supplies release
specification Variable
on novel formulation) Variable
#5 Preclinical Safety Data
Package $800,000 $1,855,000
Decision Point #5: Preclinical Safety Data Package

Preparation of the gap analysis/development plan will identify any additional studies that
might be needed to support the development of the compound for the new indication.
Based on this assessment, as well as the intended patient population, the types of studies
that will be needed to support the clinical program will be determined. It is possible that a
pharmacokinetic study evaluating exposure would be an appropriate bridge to the
available data in the literature (Table 16).
• Preclinical oral formulation development
• Bioanalytical method development
• Qualify GLP test article
• Transfer plasma assay to GLP laboratory
• ICH S7a (Safety Pharmacology) & S7b (Cardiac Tox) core battery of tests
• Toxicology bridging study
• PK/PD/Tox studies if formulation & route of administration is different
26
Table 16: Preclinical Safety Data Package

Year 1 Year 2
Decision Point Cost M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22 M23 M24
#4 Clinical
Formulation
Development $100,000 $1,055,000
#5 Preclinical
Safety Data
Package $800,000 $1,855,000
Preclinical oral
formulation
Bioanalytical
method
Qualify GLP
test article Variable
Transfer plasma
assay to GLP
laboratory Variable
ICH S7a (Safety
Pharmacology)
& S7b (Cardiac
Tox) core
battery of tests Variable
Toxicology
bridging study Variable
PK/PD/Tox
studies if
formulation &
route of
administration
is different Variable
Assay Guidance Manual
Year 1 Year 2
#6 Clinical
Supplies
Manufacture $500,000 $2,355,000
27
Decision Point #6: Clinical Supplies Manufacture

Clinical supplies will need to be manufactured. The list below provides some of the
considerations that need to be made for manufacturing clinical supplies (Table 17):
• Select cGMP supplier and transfer manufacturing process
• Cleaning validation development
• Scale-up lead formulation at GMP facility
• Clinical label design
• Manufacture clinical supplies
Table 17: Clinical Supplies Manufacture
Year 1 Year 2
#5 Preclinical
Safety Data
Package $800,000 $1,855,000
#6 Clinical
Supplies
Manufacture $500,000 $2,355,000
Select cGMP
supplier and
transfer
manufacturing
process Variable
Cleaning
validation
Scale-up lead
formulation at
GMP facility Variable
Clinical label
design Variable
Manufacture
clinical
supplies Variable
29
Decision Point #7: IND Preparation and Submission

Following the pre-IND meeting with the FDA, and conducting any additional studies, the
IND is prepared in common technical document format to support the clinical protocol.
The IND is prepared in 5 separate modules that include administrative information,
summaries (CMC, nonclinical, clinical), quality data (CMC), nonclinical study reports
and literature, and clinical study reports and literature (Table 18). Following submission of
the IND to the FDA, there is a 30-day review period during which the FDA may ask for
additional data or clarity on the information submitted. If after 30-days the FDA has
communicated that there is no objection to the proposed clinical study, the IND is
considered active and the clinical study can commence.
• Investigator’s brochure preparation
• Protocol preparation and submission to IRB
• IND preparation and submission
Table 18: IND Preparation and Submission
Year 1 Year 2
Decision
Point Cost M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22 M23 M24
#6 Clinical
Supplies
Manufacture $500,000 $2,355,000
#7 IND
Preparation
and
Submission $500,000 $2,855,000
Investigator's
brochure
preparation Variable
Protocol
preparation
and
submission to
IRB Variable
IND
preparation
and
submission Variable
31
Decision Point #8: Human Proof of Concept

Human proof of concept may commence following successful submission of an IND (i.e.
and IND that has not been placed on ‘clinical hold’). The list below provides some
information concerning human proof of concept (Table 19):
• IND Clearance
• Acceptable MTD
• Acceptable DR
Year 2
#7 IND
Preparation and
Submission $500,000 $2,855,000
#8 Human Proof
of Concept $1,000,000 $3,855,000
IND Clearance Variable
Acceptable
Maximum
Tolerated Dose
(MTD) Variable
Acceptable Dose
Response (DR) Variable
Evidence of
human
pharmacology Variable
Section 3. Development of Drug Delivery Platform Technology

Historically about 40% of NCEs identified as possessing promise for development, based
on drug-like qualities, progress to evaluation in humans. Of those that do make it into
clinical trials, about 9 out of 10 fail. In many cases, innovative drug delivery technology
can provide a “second chance” for promising compounds that have consumed precious
drug-discovery resources, but were abandoned in early clinical trials due to unfavorable
side-effect profiles. As one analyst observed, “pharmaceutical companies are sitting on
abandoned goldmines that should be reopened and excavated again using the previously
underutilized or unavailable picks and shovels developed by the drug delivery industry”
(SW Warburg Dillon Read). Although this statement was made more than 10 years ago, it
continues to apply.
Beyond enablement of new drugs, innovative approaches to drug delivery also hold
potential to enhance marketed drugs (e.g., through improvement in convenience,
tolerability, safety, and/or efficacy); expand their use (e.g., through broader labeling in the
same therapeutic area and/or increased patient acceptance/compliance); or transform
them by enabling their suitability for use in other therapeutic areas. These opportunities
contribute enormously to the potential for value creation in the drug delivery field. Table
20 summarizes the decision points for the development of drug delivery platform
technology.
Table 20: Summary of Decision Points for Drug Delivery Platform Technology
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Decision
Point Cost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
#1 Clinical
Formulation
Development $250,000 $250,000
#2
Development
Plan $300,000 $550,000
#3 Clinical
Supplies
Manufacture $500,000 $1,050,000
#4
Preclinical
Safety Data
Package $800,000 $1,850,000
#5 IND
Preparation
and
Submission $500,000 $2,350,000
#6 Human
Proof of
Concept $1,000,000 $3,350,000
#7 Clinical
Proof of
Concept $2,500,000 $5,850,000
Decision Point #1: Clinical Formulation Development

• Prototype development
• Analytical methods development
• Prototype stability
• Prototype selection
• Clinical supplies release specification
• (Submit invention disclosure on novel formulation)
See Table 21 for a schematic representation of the time and costs associated with
development at this stage.
Table 21: Clinical Formulation Development

Year 1
Decision Point Cost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
#1 Clinical Formulation Development $250,000 $250,000
Prototype development Variable
Analytical methods development Variable
Prototype stability Variable
Prototype selection Variable
Clinical supplies release specification Variable
(Submit invention disclosure on novel formulation) Variable
#2 Development Plan $300,000 $550,000
Decision Point #2: Development Plan

Preparation of a development plan allows the sponsor to evaluate the available
information regarding the compound of interest (whether at the development stage or a
previously marketed compound) to understand what information might be available to
support the proposed indication and what additional information may be needed. The
development path is dependent upon the proposed indication, change in formulation,
route, and dosing regimen. The development plan that is prepared will take this
information into account in order to determine what information or additional studies
might be needed prior to submission of an IND and initiating first-in-man studies. A
thorough search of the literature is important in order to capture available information to
satisfy the data requirements for the IND. Any gaps identified would need to be filled with
studies conducted by the sponsor. A pre-IND meeting with the FDA will allow the
sponsor to present their plan to the FDA and gain acceptance (de-risk the program) prior
to submission of the IND and conducting the first-in-man study (Table 22).
• CMC program strategy
• Preclinical program strategy
• Clinical proof of concept strategy
• Draft clinical protocol design
• Pre-IND meeting with the FDA
Table 22: Development Plan
Year 1 Year 2
Decision Point Cost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
#1 Clinical Formulation Development $250,000 $250,000
CMC program strategy Variable
Year 1 Year 2
Preclinical program strategy Variable
Clinical proof of concept strategy Variable
Draft clinical protocol design Variable
Pre-IND meeting with FDA Variable
#3 Clinical Supplies Manufacture $500,000 $1,050,000
Decision Point #3: Clinical Supplies Manufacture

• Select cGMP supplier and transfer manufacturing process
• Cleaning validation development
• Scale up lead formulation at GMP facility
• Clinical label design
• Manufacture clinical supplies
See Table 23 for a schematic representation of the time and costs associated with
development at this stage.
Table 23: Clinical Supplies Manufacture
Decision Point Cost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Select cGMP supplier and transfer
manufacturing process Variable
Cleaning validation development Variable
Scale up lead formulation at GMP
facility Variable
Clinical label design Variable
Manufacture clinical supplies Variable
#4 Preclinical Safety Data Package $800,000 $1,850,000
Decision Point #4: Preclinical Safety Package

Preparation of the gap analysis/development plan will identify any additional studies that
might be needed to support the development of the new delivery platform for the
compound. Based on this assessment, as well as the intended patient population, the types
of studies that will be needed to support the clinical program will be determined. It is
possible that a pharmacokinetic study evaluating exposure would be an appropriate

bridge to the available data in the literature (Table 24).
• Preclinical oral formulation development
• Bioanalytical method development
• Qualify GLP test article
• Transfer drug exposure/bioavailability assays to GLP laboratory
• ICH S7a (Safety Pharmacology) & S7b (Cardiac Tox) core battery of tests
• Toxicology bridging study
Table 24: Preclinical Safety Package
Decision Point Cost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Preclinical oral formulation
Bioanalytical method development Variable
Qualify GLP test article Variable
Transfer drug exposure/
bioavailability assays to GLP
laboratory Variable
ICH S7a (Safety Pharmacology) &
S7b (Cardiac Tox) core battery of
tests Variable
Toxicology bridging study Variable
#5 IND Preparation and
Submission $500,000 $2,350,000
Decision Point #5: IND Preparation and Submission

Following the pre-IND meeting with the FDA and conducting any additional studies, the
IND is prepared in common technical document format to support the clinical protocol.
The IND is prepared in 5 separate modules, which include administrative information,
summaries (CMC, nonclinical, clinical), quality data (CMC), nonclinical study reports
and literature, and clinical study reports and literature. Following submission of the IND
to the FDA, there is a 30-day review period during which the FDA might ask for
additional data or clarity on the information submitted. If after 30-days the FDA has
communicated that there is no objection to the proposed clinical study, the IND is
considered active and the clinical study can commence (Table 25).
• Investigator’s brochure preparation
• Protocol preparation and submission to IRB
• IND preparation and submission
Table 25: IND Preparation and Submission

Year 2 Year 3
#5 IND Preparation and Submission $500,000 $2,350,000
Investigator's brochure preparation Variable
Protocol preparation and submission to IRB Variable
IND preparation and submission Variable
Decision Point #6: Human Proof of Concept

Human proof of concept may commence following successful submission of an IND (i.e.
and IND that has not been placed on ‘clinical hold’). The list below provides some
information concerning human proof of concept (Table 26):
• IND Clearance
• Acceptable MTD
• Acceptable DR
Year 3 Year 4
#5 IND Preparation and Submission $500,000 $2,350,000
#6 Human Proof of Concept $1,000,000 $3,350,000
IND clearance Variable
Acceptable Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) Variable
Acceptable Dose Response (DR) Variable
Evidence of human pharmacology Variable
Decision Point #7: Clinical Proof of Concept

With acceptable DR and MTD having been defined during Phase I, in Phase II the project
team will attempt to statistically demonstrate efficacy. More specifically, the outcome of
Phase II should reliably predict the likelihood of success in Phase III randomized trials
(Table 27).
• IND Clearance
• Acceptable PK/PD profile
• Efficacy
• Direct and indirect biomarkers
• Safety and tolerance assessments
Table 27: Clinical Proof of Concept

Decision Point Cost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
#6 Human Proof of
Concept $1,000,000 $3,350,000
#7 Clinical Proof
of Concept $2,500,000 $5,850,000
IND clearance Variable
Acceptable PK/PD
profile Variable
Efficacy Variable
Direct and indirect
biomarkers Variable
Safety and tolerance
assessments Variable
Section 4. Alternative NCE Strategy: Exploratory IND

The plans outlined previously in these guidelines describe advancement of novel drugs as
well as repurposed or reformulated, marketed drug products to human and/or clinical
proof of concept trials using the traditional or conventional early drug development, IND
approach. This section of the guidelines outlines an alternative approach to accelerating
novel drugs and imaging molecules to humans employing a Phase 0, exploratory IND
strategy (exploratory IND). The exploratory IND strategy was first issued in the form of
draft guidance in April, 2005. Following a great deal of feedback from the public and
private sectors, the final guidance was published in January, 2006.
Phase 0 describes clinical trials that occur very early in the Phase I stage of drug
development. Phase 0 trials limit drug exposure to humans (up to 7 days) and have no
therapeutic intent. Phase 0 studies are viewed by the FDA and National Cancer Institute
(NCI) as important tools for accelerating novel drugs to the clinic. There is some
flexibility in data requirements for an exploratory IND. These requirements are dependent
on the goals of the investigation (e.g., receptor occupancy, pharmacokinetics, human
biomarker validation), the clinical testing approach, and anticipated risks.
Exploratory IND studies provide the sponsor with an opportunity to evaluate up to five
chemical entities (optimized chemical lead candidates) or formulations at once. When an
optimized chemical lead candidate or formulation is selected, the exploratory IND is then
closed, and subsequent drug development proceeds along the traditional IND pathway.
This approach allows one, when applicable, to characterize the human
pharmacokinetics and target interaction of chemical lead candidates. Exploratory
IND goals are typically to:
• Characterize the relationship between mechanism of action and treatment of the

disease; in other words, to validate proposed drug targets in humans
• Characterize the human pharmacokinetics
• Select the most promising chemical lead candidate from a group of optimized
chemical lead candidates (note that the chemical lead candidates do not necessarily
have the same chemical scaffold origins)
• Explore the bio-distribution of chemical lead candidates employing imaging
strategies (e.g., PET studies)
Exploratory IND studies are broadly described as “microdosing” studies and clinical
studies attempting to demonstrate a pharmacologic effect. Exploratory IND or Phase 0
strategies must be discussed with the relevant regulatory agency before implementation.
These studies are described below.
Microdosing studies are intended to characterize the pharmacokinetics of chemical lead
candidates or the imaging of specific human drug targets. Microdosing studies are not
intended to produce a pharmacologic effect. Doses are limited to less than 1/100th of the
dose predicted (based on preclinical data) to produce a pharmacologic effect in humans,
or a dose of less than 100 μg/subject, whichever is less. Exploratory IND-enabling
preclinical safety requirements for microdosing studies are substantially less than the
conventional IND approach. In the US, a single dose, single species toxicity study
employing the clinical route of administration is required. Animals are observed for 14
days following administration of the single dose. Routine toxicology endpoints are
collected. The objective of this toxicology study is to identify the minimally toxic dose, or
alternatively, demonstrate a large margin of safety (e.g., 100x). Genotoxicity studies are
not required. The EMEA, in contrast to the FDA, requires toxicology studies employing
two routes of administration, intravenous and the clinical route, prior to initiating
microdosing studies. Genotoxicity studies (bacterial mutation and micronucleus) are
required. Exploratory IND workshops have discussed or proposed the allowance of up to
five microdoses administered to each subject participating in an exploratory IND study,
provided each dose does not exceed 1/100th the NOAEL or 1/100th of the anticipated
pharmacologically active dose, or the total dose administered is less than 100 mcg,
whichever is less. In this case, doses would be separated by a washout period of at least six
pharmacokinetic terminal half-lives. Fourteen-day repeat toxicology studies
encompassing the predicted therapeutic dose range (but less than the MTD) have also
been proposed to support expanded dosing in microdosing studies.
Exploratory IND clinical trials designed to produce a pharmacologic effect were proposed
by PhRMA in May 2004, based on a retrospective analysis of 106 drugs that supported the
accelerated preclinical safety-testing paradigm. In Phase 0 studies designed to produce a
pharmacologic effect, up to five compounds can be studied. The compounds must have a
common drug target, but do not necessarily have to be structurally related. Healthy
volunteers or minimally ill patients may receive up to 7 repeated doses in the clinic. The
goal is to achieve a pharmacologic response but not define the MTD. Preclinical safety
requirements are greater compared to microdosing studies. Fourteen-day repeat
toxicology studies are required and conducted in rodents (i.e., rats), with full clinical and
histopathology evaluation. In addition, a full safety pharmacology battery, as described by
ICH S7a, is required. In other words, untoward pharmacologic effects on the
cardiovascular, respiratory, and central nervous systems are characterized prior to Phase
0. In addition, genotoxicity studies employing bacterial mutation and micronucleus assays
are required. In addition to the 14-day rodent toxicology study, a repeat dose study in a
non-rodent specie (typically dog) is conducted at the rat NOAEL dose. The duration of
the non-rodent repeat dose study is equivalent to the duration of dosing planned for the
Phase 0 trial. If toxicity is observed in the non-rodent specie at the rat NOAEL, the
chemical lead candidate will not proceed to Phase 0. The starting dose for Phase 0 studies
is defined typically as 1/50th the rat NOAEL, based on a per meter squared basis. Dose
escalation in these studies is terminated when: 1) a pharmacologic effect or target
modulation is observed, 2) a dose equivalent (e.g., scaled to humans on a per meter
squared basis) to one-fourth the rat NOAEL, or 3) human systemic exposure reflected as
AUC reaches ½ the AUC observed in the rat or dog in the 14-day repeat toxicology
studies, whichever is less.
Early phase clinical trials with terminally ill patients without therapeutic options,
involving potentially promising drugs for life threatening diseases, may be studied under
limited (e.g., up to 3 days dosing) conditions employing a facilitated IND strategy. As with
the Phase 0 strategies described above, it is imperative that this approach be defined in
partnership with the FDA prior to implementation.
The reduced preclinical safety requirements are scaled to the goals, duration and scope of
Phase 0 studies. Phase 0 strategies have merit when the initial clinical experience is not
driven by toxicity, when pharmacokinetics are a primary determinant in selection from a
group of chemical lead candidates (and a bioanalytical method is available to quantify
drug concentrations at microdoses), when pharmacodynamic endpoints in surrogate
(e.g., blood) or tumor tissue is of primary interest, or to assess PK/PD relationships (e.g.,
receptor occupancy studies employing PET scanning).
PhRMA conducted a pharmaceutical industry survey in 2007 to characterize the
industry’s perspective on the current and future utility of exploratory IND studies (3). Of
the 16 firms who provided survey responses, 56% indicated they had either executed or
were planning to execute exploratory IND development strategies. The authors concluded
that the merits of exploratory INDs continue to be debated, however, this approach
provides a valuable option to advancing drugs to the clinic.
There are limitations to the exploratory IND approach. Doses employed in Phase 0 studies
might not be predictive of doses over the human dose range (up to the maximum
tolerated dose). Phase 0 studies in patients raises ethical issues compared to conventional
Phase I, in that escalation into a pharmacologically active dose range might not be
possible under the exploratory IND guidance. The Phase 0 strategy is designed to kill
drugs early that are likely to fail based on PK or PK/PD. Should Phase 0 lead to a “Go”
decision, however, a conventional IND is required for subsequent clinical trials, adding
cost and time. Perhaps one of the most compelling arguments for employing an
exploratory IND strategy is in the context of characterizing tissue distribution (e.g.,
receptor occupancy following PET studies) after microdosing.
Section 5. Orphan Drug Designation

Development programs for cancer drugs are often much more complex as compared to
drugs used to treat many other indications. This complexity often results in extended
development and approval timelines. In addition, oncology patient populations are often
much smaller by comparison to other more prevalent indications. These factors (e.g.,
limited patent life and smaller patient populations) often complicate commercialization
strategies and can, ultimately, make it more difficult to provide patient access to important
new therapies.
To help manage and expedite the commercialization of drugs used to treat rare
diseases, including many cancers, the Orphan Drug Act was signed into law in 1983.
This law provides incentives to help sponsors and investigators develop new therapies for
diseases and conditions of less than 200,000 cases per year allowing for more realistic
commercialization.
The specific incentives for orphan-designated drugs are as follows:
• Seven years of exclusive marketing rights to the sponsor of a designated orphan
drug product for the designated indication once approval to market has been
received from the FDA
• A credit against tax for qualified clinical research expenses incurred in developing a
designated orphan product
• Eligibility to apply for specific orphan drug grants
A sponsor may request orphan drug designation for:
• A previously unapproved drug
• A new indication for a marketed drug
• A drug that already has orphan drug status—if the sponsor is able to provide valid
evidence that their drug may be clinically superior to the first drug
A sponsor, investigator, or an individual may apply for orphan drug designation prior to
establishing an active clinical program or can apply at any stage of development (e.g.,
Phase 1 – 3). If orphan drug designation is granted, clinical studies to support the
proposed indication are required. A drug is not given orphan drug status and, thus
marketing exclusivity, until the FDA approves a marketing application. Orphan drug
status is granted to the first sponsor to obtain FDA approval and not necessarily the
sponsor originally submitting the orphan drug designation request.
There is no formal application for an orphan drug designation. However, the regulations
(e.g., 21 CRF 316) identify the components to be included. An orphan drug designation
request is typically a five- to ten-page document with appropriate literature references
appended to support the prevalence statements of less than 200,000 cases/year. The
orphan drug designation request generally includes:
• The specific rare disease or condition for which orphan drug designation is being
requested
• Sponsor contact, drug names, and sources
• A description of the rare disease or condition with a medically plausible rationale
for any patient subset type of approach
• A description of the drug and the scientific rationale for the use of the drug for the
rare disease or condition
• A summary of the regulatory status and marketing history of the drug
• Documentation (for a treatment indication for the disease or condition) that the
drug will affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States (prevalence)
• Documentation (for a prevention indication [or a vaccine or diagnostic drug] for
the disease or condition) that the drug will affect fewer than 200,000 people in the
United States per year (incidence)
• Alternatively, a rationale may be provided for why there is no reasonable
expectation that costs of research and development of the drug for the indication
can be recovered by sales of the drug in the United States
Following receipt of the request, the FDA Office of Orphan Product Development
(OOPD) will provide an acknowledgment of receipt of the orphan drug designation
request. The official response will typically be provided within 1 to 3 months following
submission. Upon notification of granting an orphan drug designation, the name of the
sponsor and the proposed rare disease or condition will be published in the federal
register as part of public record. The complete orphan drug designation request is placed
in the public domain once the drug has received marketing approval in accordance with
the Freedom of Information Act.
Finally, the sponsor of an orphan designated drug must provide annual updates that
contain a brief summary of any ongoing or completed nonclinical or clinical studies, a
description of the investigational plan for the coming year, any anticipated difficulties in
development, testing, and marketing, and a brief discussion of any changes that may affect
the orphan drug status of the product
Conclusion
While many authors have described the general guidelines for drug development (4,5,
etc.), no one has outlined the process of developing drugs in an academic setting. It is well
known that the propensity for late stage failures has lead to a dramatic increase in the
overall cost of drug development over the last 15 years. It is also commonly accepted that
the best way to prevent late stage failures is by increasing scientific rigor in the discovery,
preclinical, and early clinical stages. Where many authors present drug discovery as a
single monolithic process, we intend to reflect here that there are multiple decision points
contained within this process.
An alternative approach is the exploratory IND (Phase 0) under which the endpoint is
proof of principle demonstration of target inhibition (6). This potentially paradigm-
shifting approach might dramatically improve the probability of late stage success and
may offer additional opportunities for academic medical centers to become involved in
drug discovery and development.
References
Literature Cited
1. Pre-IND Consultation Program. US Food and Drug Administration. [Online] [Cited:
August 17, 2010.] Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/
DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/
ApprovalApplications/InvestigationalNewDrugINDApplication/Overview/
default.htm.
2. Apparent activity in high-throughput screening: origins of compound-depedent assay
interference. Thorne N, et al. 2010, Curr Opin Chem Biol, p. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.
2010.03.020..
3. Karara AH, Edeki T, McLeod J, et al. PhRMA survey on the conduct of first-in-human
clinical trials under exploratory investigational new drug applications. J Clin
Pharmacol. 2010;50:380–391. PubMed PMID: 20097935.
4. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. DiMasi, J.A.,
Hansen, R.W., and Grabowski, H.G. 2003, Journal of Health Economics, pp. 151-185.
5. Mehta, Shreefal S. Commercializing Successful Biomedical Technologies. Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press, 2008.
6. Phase 0 Clinical Trails in Cancer Drug Development: From FDA Guidance to Clinical
Practice. Kinders, Robert, et al. 2007, Molecular Interventions, pp. 325-334.
Additional References
Eckstein, Jens. ISOA/ARF Drug Development Tutorial.

Decision Points in NCE Development PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Decision Points in NCE Development PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Decision Points in NCE Development PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Early Drug Discovery and Development

Guidelines: For Academic Researchers,

Section 1 Discovery and Development of New Chemical Entities

Decision Point #1 - Target Identification

Decision Point #2 - Target Validation

Decision Point #3 - Identification of Actives

Table 3: Identification of Actives

Decision Point #4 - Confirmation of Hits

Table 4: Confirmation of Hits

Decision Point #5 - Identification of Chemical Lead

also important is the compound’s pharmacokinetic profile regarding absorption,

Table 5 continued from previous page.

Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Decision Point #6 - Selection of Optimized Chemical Lead

Table 6: Selection of an Optimized Chemical Lead

Decision Point #7 - Selection of a Development Candidate

• Acceptable PK (with a validated bioanalytical method)

Decision Point #8 - Pre-IND Meeting with the FDA

Decision Point #9 - Preparation and Submission of an IND Application

Table 8: Submit IND Application

Decision Point #10 - Human Proof of Concept

Table 9: Human Proof of Concept

Decision Point #11: Clinical Proof of Concept

Table 10 continued from previous page.

Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9

Section 2. Repurposing of Marketed Drugs

Decision Point #1: Identification of Actives

Decision Point #2: Confirmation of Hits

Table 13 continued from previous page.

Decision Point #3: Gap Analysis/Development Plan

Table 14 continued from previous page.

Decision Point #4: Clinical Formulation Development

Table 15 continued from previous page.

Decision Point #5: Preclinical Safety Data Package

Table 16: Preclinical Safety Data Package

Decision Point #6: Clinical Supplies Manufacture

Decision Point #7: IND Preparation and Submission

Decision Point #8: Human Proof of Concept

Section 3. Development of Drug Delivery Platform Technology

Decision Point #1: Clinical Formulation Development

Table 21: Clinical Formulation Development

Decision Point #2: Development Plan

Table 22 continued from previous page.

Decision Point #3: Clinical Supplies Manufacture

Decision Point #4: Preclinical Safety Package

possible that a pharmacokinetic study evaluating exposure would be an appropriate

Decision Point #5: IND Preparation and Submission

Table 25: IND Preparation and Submission

Decision Point #6: Human Proof of Concept

Decision Point #7: Clinical Proof of Concept

Table 27: Clinical Proof of Concept

Section 4. Alternative NCE Strategy: Exploratory IND

• Characterize the relationship between mechanism of action and treatment of the

Section 5. Orphan Drug Designation

You might also like