Translational medicine/science/research (pick your poison) is the new buzz word in drug discovery and development. Sure, it has been deigned as the ark that will see us through the stormy times of the changing landscape of R&D- but will it do what it says on the tin and deliver on reducing attrition rates, allowing R&D to be handled more effectively and increasing commuincation between departments? the jury's out. We have yet to see any real examples of TM doing any of this successfully. But perversely, it has been around for over 20 years in one form or another...

However, it is abundantly clear that with the changing pharma landscape SOMETHING must be done to move away from traditional methods of drug development, used when the blockbuster was king. Maybe Translational Medicine is just what the doctor ordered to help organisations move away from their traditional linear approach and towards a semblance of a cohesive and integrated team that working together for a common goal. What do you think?

Posted 16th September 2009, 16:37:00

I wouldn't profess to be an expert on "translational medicine" and indeed the term seems to mean different things to different people but I would say three things are critical here, none of which are quite up to speed:

1) Better coordination between the researchers, clinicians and commercial folk
2) Realistic assessment of the target patient pool (designing a trial for the right patient pool rather than getting greedy and going for a much bigger one where there is less therapeutic benefit)
3) Greater use and development of diagnostics to support patient segmentation

There seems to be a focus on (1) in a lot of the current reorgs, but still think we have some way to go on (2) & (3) although increasing cost containment is forcing (2)

Posted 17th September 2009, 15:45:10

The attrition rate per se is not the issue here - even if the attrition rate gets not better early elimination of ineffective drugs is critical and often late-stage failures occur because of overambitious position / poor definement of patient pool.

Posted 22nd September 2009, 19:25:33

clairepoole,

Thanks for starting the discussion. It seems that "translational medicine" is used to talk about a number of things. Can you clarify how you would define this term?

Posted 23rd September 2009, 17:10:09

As an addition, the recent news about the QIAGEN acquisition of DxS Ltd. certainly highlights the focus on companion diagnostics in support of personalised / translational medicine.

See http://www.pharmapho...td?replies=1#post-81

Posted 8th October 2009, 18:30:15

clairepoole said
a cohesive and integrated team that working together for a common goal. What do you think?

Sounds more like a biotech company than big pharma to me.....

Posted 22nd October 2009, 15:14:18

Paul said
As an addition, the recent news about the QIAGEN acquisition of DxS Ltd. certainly highlights the focus on companion diagnostics in support of personalised / translational medicine.
See http://www.pharmapho...td?replies=1#post-81

I do think this will help, but to reiterate my earlier point wonder if pharma is slightly scared of this ruling out signficant patient groups (even though it is in their best interests to limit the drug to those whom it will be effective on)?