Hitting the Target, Missing the Mark: How Targeted Therapies Have Left Patients Wanting


It is not unusual to read about another drug failure in a challenging neurological disease such as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, or Parkinson’s disease. Designing therapeutics with exquisite specificity has been the goal of modern drug development, and significant resources continue to be allocated towards this approach, only to see treatments fail due to inadequate efficacy or intolerable side effects. How we approach the development of new therapeutics for treating complex diseases will be key for achieving better patient outcomes.

A recent example of a once promising drug candidate using a targeted approach is semagacestat, a treatment developed by Eli Lilly and Elan. Proposed to lower the build-up of harmful plaques in the brain of Alzheimer’s disease patients, its Phase III trial was halted last August because semagacestat worsened clinical symptoms compared to placebo. Semagacestat targets a single enzyme called gamma secretase, which turns a protein found in normal brain into amyloid, the building block of the plaques found in Alzheimer’s disease. Semagacestat’s failure represents the difficulties in developing treatments that target specific molecules, whether these targets are surface proteins or signaling pathway intermediates inside of cells.

Several stumbling blocks can be identified in the development of targeted therapies, using semagacestat as an example:

1. The role of the target is not well established.

Many drugs target proteins whose function within a specific disease is difficult to ascertain. Alzheimer’s disease is characterized by the presence of plaques that prevent nerve cells from communicating. The therapeutic value of targeting plaque build-up is unclear, and a lack of definition for the exact role of amyloid in disease progression adds uncertainty for the therapeutic effectiveness of drugs like semagacestat.

2. Redundancy in cellular communication prevents efficacy of the drug in the absence of toxicity

Obstructing the generation of amyloid alone has limited effect on the complex nature of Alzheimer’s disease. The dysregulation of a group of proteins called Tau has recently taken the forefront as another important contributor. Genetic factors, such as variations in the lipoprotein APOE, play a significant role in disease progression and may greatly impact the ability of proposed therapeutics to affect the entire patient population. In addition, inflammation … Next Page »

Single PageCurrently on Page: 1 2

Richard Watson is the director of clinical research at Tacoma, WA-based Revalesio. Follow @

Trending on Xconomy

By posting a comment, you agree to our terms and conditions.

4 responses to “Hitting the Target, Missing the Mark: How Targeted Therapies Have Left Patients Wanting”

  1. Ted says:

    “Why do you want to stop neutrophils, anyway? They do good things. The body didn’t make them to cause problems, they’re in there to solve problems, and now you want to stop them from moving around?”

    Our presentation to the pulmonary physician didn’t go so well. We figured, hey, these cells are found in elevated levels in diseased tissue, they’re activated, they’re causing problems, right? If we can stop them from getting there – bingo, problem solved.

    He was right, of course. Inflammation is much more complicated than that.

    It turned out, the bigger problem was the myriad avenues neutrophils had to get them around. Shut down one pathway, and six others take over without missing a beat. Shut down the wrong one, and the cells die – stimulating the production of replacements… We never even got to the point where we could fail from “inappropriate efficacy!”

    This was over a decade ago, but the lesson is still fresh, to me.

    I don’t know if Dr. Watson has the answers, but I agree wholeheartedly with his view of the problem. I think our ability to identify potential intervention targets has clearly outstripped our ability to discern the variety of roles they serve in an intact organism. This is why I believe ongoing investment in “academic” medical research is so critical.


  2. Richard WatsonRichard Watson says:

    Great comments. I agree, neutrophils are our friends! As we look at inflammation in a new light, it will force us to look at treatments and research in a new way. Academic research is critical to this and the collaborations between academic centers and bio-techs need to advance to meet the challenges.

  3. One thing to remember as well is that specific targeting might not be the best goal and multi-targeting might yield a better result. Sometimes a “soft touch” at multiple targets might yield a much better result than a “hammer” at one specific target. Considering the exquisitely complex biochemical pathways that our bodies use to manage themselves, saturating a single receptor can have many unforeseen downstream consequences. Hopefully we can solve some of these issues using smart system biology approaches, but it will be a complex juggling act.

  4. Richard WatsonRichard Watson says:

    I think you are exactly right. When treating hypertension, for example, it is known that using small amounts of multiple drugs would often have higher efficacy and fewer side effects. I think this could be an effective strategy at a cellular level as well. I think that is also one of the reasons Copaxone, the Teva Multiple Sclerosis drug, has been so successful. While its mechanism isn’t entirely known, it seems to keep the immune system “busy” during critical phases of the development of the disease. Probably this is occurring by this “soft targeting” you are speaking of.
    Great comment.