Skip to Content

Academia (vs. Industry)

The NIH’s Drug Repurposing Program Gets Going

Here’s an update on the NIH’s NCATS program to repurpose failed clinical candidates from the drug industry. I wrote about this effort here last year, and expressed some skepticism. It’s not that I think that trying drugs (or near-drugs) for other purposes is a bad idea prima facie, because it isn’t. I just wonder about the way the way the NIH is talking about this, versus its chances for success.
As was pointed out last time this topic came up, the number of failed clinical candidates involved in this effort is dwarfed by the number of approved compounds that could also be repurposed – and have, in fact, been looked at for years for just that purpose. The success rate is not zero, but it has not been a four-lane shortcut to the promised land, either. And the money involved here ($12.7 million split between nine grants) is, as that Nature piece correctly says, “not much”. Especially when you’re going after something like Alzheimer’s:

Strittmatter’s team is one of nine that won funding last month from the NIH’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) in Bethesda, Maryland, to see whether abandoned drugs can be aimed at new targets. Strittmatter, a neuro­biologist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, hopes that a failed cancer drug called saracatinib can block an enzyme implicated in Alzheimer’s. . .
. . .Saracatinib inhibits the Src family kinases (SFKs), enzymes that are commonly activated in cancer cells, and was first developed by London-based pharmaceutical company Astra­Zeneca. But the drug proved only marginally effective against cancer, and the company abandoned it — after spending millions of dollars to develop it through early human trials that proved that it was safe. With that work already done, Strittmatter’s group will be able to move the drug quickly into testing in people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease.
The team plans to begin a 24-person safety and dosing trial in August. If the results are good, NCATS will fund the effort for two more years, during which the scientists will launch a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with 159 participants. Over a year, the team will measure declines in glucose metabolism — a marker for progression of Alzheimer’s disease — in key brain regions, hoping to find that they have slowed.

If you want some saracatanib, you can buy some, by the way (that’s just one of the suppliers). And since AZ has already taken this through phase I, then the chances for it passing another Phase I are very good indeed. I will not be impressed by any press releases at that point. The next step, the Phase IIa with 159 people, is as far as this program is mandated to go. But how far is that? One year is not very long in a population of Alzheimer’s patients, and 159 patients is not all that many in a disease that heterogeneous. And the whole trial is looking at a secondary marker (glucose metabolism) which (to the best of my knowledge) has not demonstrated any clinical utility as a measure of efficacy for the disease. From what I know about the field, getting someone at that point to put up the big money for larger trials will not be an easy sell.
I understand the impulse to go after Alzheimer’s – who dares, wins, eh? But given the amount of money available here, I think the chances for success would be better against almost any other disease. It is very possible to take a promising-looking Alzheimer’s candidate all the way through a multi-thousand-patient multiyear Phase III and still wipe out – ask Eli Lilly, among many others. You’d hope that at least a few of them are in areas where there’s a shorter, more definitive clinical readout.
Here’s the list, and here’s the list of all the compounds that have been made available to the whole effort so far. Update: structures here. The press conference announcing the first nine awards is here. The NIH has not announced what the exact compounds are for all the grants, but I’m willing to piece it together myself. Here’s what I have:
One of them is saracatanib again, this time for lymphangioleiomyomatosis. There’s also an ER-beta agonist being looked at for schizophrenia, a J&J/Janssen nicotinic allosteric modulator for smoking cessation, and a Pfizer ghrelin antagonist for alcoholism (maybe from this series?). There’s a Sanofi compound for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which the NIH has studiously avoided naming, although it’s tempting to speculate that it’s riferminogene pecaplasmide, a gene-therapy vector for FGF1. But Genetic Engineering News says that there are only seven compounds, with a Sanofi one doubling up as well as the AZ kinase inhibitor, so maybe this one is the ACAT inhibitor below. Makes more sense than a small amount of money trying to advance a gene therapy approach, for sure.
There’s an endothelin antagonist for peripheral artery disease. Another unnamed Sanofi compound is being studied for calcific aortic valve stenosis, and my guess is that it’s canosimibe, an ACAT inhibitor, since that enzyme has recently been linked to stenosis and heart disease. Finally, there’s a Pfizer glycine transport inhibitor being looked at for schizophrenia, which seems a bit odd, because I was under the impression that this compound had already failed in the clinic for that indication. They appear to have some other angle.
So there you have it. I look forward to seeing what comes of this effort, and also to hearing what the NIH will have to say at that point. We’ll check in when the time comes!
Update: here’s more from Collaborative Chemistry. And here’s a paper they published on the problems of identifying compounds for initiatives like this:

In particular, it is notable that NCATS provides on its website [31] only the code number, selected international non-proprietary names (INN) and links to more information including mechanism of action, original development indication, route of administration and formulation availability. However, the molecular structures corresponding to the company code numbers were not included. Although we are highly supportive of the efforts of NCATS to promote drug repurposing in the context of facilitating and funding proposals, we find this omission difficult to understand for a number of reasons. . .

They’re calling for the NIH (and the UK initiative in this area as well) to provide real structures and IDs for the compounds they’re working with. It’s hard to argue against it!

8 comments on “The NIH’s Drug Repurposing Program Gets Going”

  1. cdsouthan says:

    We did our best to dig out a list of CIDs and wrote a paper (links

  2. simpl says:

    I can’t resist a naive question on the structure of canosimibe, as I had understood that multiple hydroxy groups metabolise readily.
    Is it some cunning plan to sneak up on a membrane, then explode on contact?

  3. Myma says:

    I don’t know what that is, but I don’t want to have it. There are too many word fragments in it that all mean bad news. All it is missing is an extra second -oma on the end for emphasis.

  4. qetzal says:

    FWIW, I’m doubtful that the Duchenne muscular distropy drug would be an FGF1 gene therapy. People have been interested in gene therapy for DMD for a long time, but I’ve never heard that FGF1 was considered a possible therapeutic approach. I’ve only ever heard of that as a pro-angiogenic for things like peripheral or coronary arterial disease.
    Plus, a quick glance at PubMed suggests that over-expression of certain FGFs may even be involved in the pathology of DMD.

  5. luigi says:

    @4 – don’t introduce logic into the discussion – Sir Francis reigns over a kingdom – intramural and extramural – that makes up/refutes the laws of science as it goes along – Begley’s experiences in bias and irreproducibility support that.
    Remember King Canute and Collins support of Obama’s AD cure by 2025?
    David Jack, David Horrabin where are you guys?

  6. Formerly UCB says:

    This is great, but how do we access the compounds? One of the GW compounds is a very close analogue of something which we have discovered kills a very dangerous parasite.

  7. ex-GSK says:

    The real question is why does the NIH think a re-run of “Gilligan’s Island” will win them an Oscar?
    Accumulating a collection of failed candidates and marketed drugs to freely share (w all the info) for screening by anyone interested is fine, and may lead to new indications – but billing this as the star attraction of a major new initiative seems absurd.

  8. darwinsdog says:

    NCATS has had to put out some hyperbole for the masses in order to get established; get past that and there is something worth doing (and yes they are a come-lately to the idea). Add to that the cost is ridiculously low (if NIH operating budget is the scale of a Pharma (~30B), and NIH intramural budget is the scale of a biotech (3B) with one small indication product on the market, then NCATS (100M) is like a ~20 person start-up/incubator stage with a little lab space). But how this start-up grows after the initial hype has faded is the big question. I hope they do well as NIH is such a biology driven place (ask anyone in chemistry trying to get a grant funded) and could use a healthy infusion of chemistry sophistication.

Comments are closed.