Cited by 514Computational Drug Discovery MethodsHistorical Medical Research and TreatmentsPharmaceutical Economics and Policy

The discovery of first-in-class drugs: origins and evolution

Eder, Jörg, Sedrani, Richard, Wiesmann, Christian·2014·Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Abstract

Analysis of the origins of new drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 1999 to 2008 suggested that phenotypic screening strategies had been more productive than target-based approaches in the discovery of first-in-class small-molecule drugs. However, given the relatively recent introduction of target-based approaches in the context of the long time frames of drug development, their full impact might not yet have become apparent. Here, we present an analysis of the origins of all 113 first-in-class drugs approved by the FDA from 1999 to 2013, which shows that the majority (78) were discovered through target-based approaches (45 small-molecule drugs and 33 biologics). In addition, of 33 drugs identified in the absence of a target hypothesis, 25 were found through a chemocentric approach in which compounds with known pharmacology served as the starting point, with only eight coming from what we define here as phenotypic screening: testing a large number of compounds in a target-agnostic assay that monitors phenotypic changes. We also discuss the implications for drug discovery strategies, including viewing phenotypic screening as a novel discipline rather than as a neoclassical approach.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrd4336

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Identification of the molecular target and selection of a promising candidate from a list of toxic compounds remains a challenge for phenotypic screens.

    “Still, identification of the molecular target and selection of a promising candidate from a list of toxic compounds remains a challenge for phenotypic screens (Eder et al., 2014).”

    From Degradation of CCNK/CDK12 is a druggable vulnerability of colorectal cancer (2021) · cites this paper as Eder et al., 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eder, J., Sedrani, R., & Wiesmann, C.
Affiliations
Novartis (Switzerland) (CH)
Corresponding author
Eder, Jörg
Venue
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery
Published
2014-07-18
Volume
13
Issue
8
Pages
577-587
ISSN
  • 1474-1776 (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-1784
OpenAlex
W2060333462
Cited by
514
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 8
FWCI
4.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Drug Discovery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Historical Medical Research and Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Keywords
first-in-class drugs, drug discovery strategies, phenotypic screening, target-based drug discovery, small molecule drugs, biologics, FDA-approved drugs, drug development history
MeSH terms
Drug Industry, Drug Evaluation, Preclinical, Humans, Drug Approval, Systems Biology, History, 20th Century, History, 21st Century, Drug Discovery

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review