Corante

About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
Kilomentor
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Instapundit
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus


Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« The Flip Side: Organic Chemistry That Should Be More Famous | Main | ChemDraw on the iPad »

June 4, 2013

AstraZeneca, As Expected, Pulls the Plug

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Late last year came word that the AstraZeneca/Rigel compound, fostamatinib, had failed to show any benefit versus AbbVie's Humira in the clinic. Now they've gritted their corporate teeth and declared failure, sending the whole program back to Rigel.

I've lost count of how many late-stage clinical wipeouts this makes for AZ, but it sure is a lot of them. The problem is, it's hard to say just how much of this is drug discovery itself (after all, we have brutal failure rates even when things are going well), how much of it is just random bad luck, or what might be due to something more fundamental about target and compound selection. At any rate, their CEO, Pascal Soriot, has a stark backdrop against which to perform. Odds are, things will pick up, just by random chance if by nothing else. But odds are, that may not be enough. . .

Comments (19) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Business and Markets | Clinical Trials


COMMENTS

1. Benjamin Carlisle on June 4, 2013 12:30 PM writes...

Did you mean "fostamatinib" ? I couldn't find any entries in clinicaltrials.gov for "fostamitinib".

Permalink to Comment

2. emjeff on June 4, 2013 12:53 PM writes...

Well, it stands to reason that if you are failing a lot in Phase 3, you are doing something very wrong in Phase 2. Perhaps AZ needs to look at their quantitative clinical pharmacology group (or lack thereof) and determine what's wrong with their phase 2 programs that is so consistently getting things wrong.

Permalink to Comment

3. Benjamin Carlisle on June 4, 2013 1:02 PM writes...

@emjeff Have you seen this article by my colleagues?

http://www.translationalethics.com/2013/05/10/how-many-negative-trials-do-we-need/

They discuss exactly the issue you're getting at here.

Permalink to Comment

4. tedthechemist on June 4, 2013 5:03 PM writes...

Phase 2 showed no impact on disease progression - AZ brought this junk on the fact that some biomarker said it should work.....

Permalink to Comment

5. oldnuke on June 4, 2013 6:46 PM writes...

Sounds like a case of MBA overdose...

Permalink to Comment

6. Atavist on June 4, 2013 11:01 PM writes...

Bad compound, bad selectivity, bad pharmacology, bad clinical plan. Why is anyone surprised this failed ? We should be surprised that anyone paid so much for this. Another example of bad science through and through.

Permalink to Comment

7. Nick K on June 5, 2013 1:04 AM writes...

Minor correction: the current CEO of AZ is called Pascal Soriot, not Soirot.

AZ is not having a lot of luck at the moment!

Permalink to Comment

8. DrSnowboard on June 5, 2013 1:30 AM writes...

http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v12/n6/pdf/nrd4044.pdf

Ah, but it's OK, all those legacy programmes were dogs but the new team has loads of new stuff to talk up, especially that brand new PARP inhibitor...Kudos for having your most productive year Mene!

Permalink to Comment

9. JeffC on June 5, 2013 3:03 AM writes...

#8 LOL. He definitely got Kudos. It was very nice of him to take the credit for that stab in the back

Permalink to Comment

10. Jose on June 5, 2013 3:31 AM writes...

Re #4-

It's very funny, biomarkers are the current rage in epidemiology- "oooooh! Sexy molecular methods mean we don't have to wait for tedious outcomes!" *squeals of delight*

I've tried directing several colleagues to the fact that pharma spending millions on them and now they've relegated to the trash heap due to being huge waste of time. No-one seems to believe it, however.... 'next verse, same as the first"

Permalink to Comment

11. Anonymous on June 5, 2013 5:58 AM writes...

I was working at Charnwood when the acquisition of the compound was being discussed.
The message from medicinal chemistry was a resounding no, don't buy it the early P2 results aren't good enough, but the deal was done . . .

Permalink to Comment

12. Petros on June 5, 2013 7:41 AM writes...

#11's comments are interesting. My perspective from the outside was similar.

One wonders who really made the decision to blow a few hundred million dollars on this?

Permalink to Comment

13. Anonymous on June 5, 2013 8:22 AM writes...

here is one of new and exiting AZ clinical candidates:

http://www.medkoo.com/Anticancer-trials/AZD-1208.htm

Remember this and related posts ?

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2012/05/23/another_vote_against_rhodanines.php

No wonder AZ has such high failure rate...

Permalink to Comment

14. anon2 on June 5, 2013 10:18 AM writes...

@13: AZD-1208 is not a rhodanine. Rhodanine has a thiocarbonyl, not a carbonyl.

Permalink to Comment

15. DCRogers on June 5, 2013 10:18 AM writes...

"Odds are, things will pick up, just by random chance if by nothing else."

For clarity, "things will pick up" == "return to baseline" (chance of P3 success), right?

The less-well-versed might interpret this as a version of a common gambler's mistake: "It's been tails so many times, the odds are better the next time it's heads!".

Unfortunately for A/Z, return to baseline will not suffice to replenish their sales pipeline.

Permalink to Comment

16. Vader on June 5, 2013 10:33 AM writes...

#15,

The gambler's fallacy and regression to the mean are distinct phenomena, and only one is a fallacy.

But:

"Unfortunately for A/Z, return to baseline will not suffice to replenish their sales pipeline."

Does make AZ sound more like a desperate gambler than a sound statistician.

Permalink to Comment

17. SteveM on June 5, 2013 11:29 AM writes...

Sounds like AZ management has not been taught that sunk costs are not related to future value.

Permalink to Comment

18. Cialisize Me on June 5, 2013 1:33 PM writes...

Who actually performed the Phase II trials?? Seems like a common theme that a biotech gets great Phase II data, sells it for big bucks to a Pharma who later finds out that it's no good. Pick your example: Inhibitex, BiPar, Sirtris, help me out here.... You'd think they'd learn and maybe bring things in earlier so that they could control the development into the clinic and oversee the trials.

Permalink to Comment

19. Ned Ludd on June 5, 2013 9:51 PM writes...

Even I, Ned Ludd, know that there is no such thing as faith-based drug discovery.

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
More on "Metabolite Likeness" as a Predictor
Different Screening, Different Thermodynamics?
The Electromagnetic Field Stem Cell Authors Respond
What's The Going Rate These Days?
No More Varian
Not The Sort Of Thing You'd Work With, Given a Choice
Combichem Into Drugs: How Many?
Electromagnetic Production of Stem Cells? Really?