Psychiatric medication is in dire need of innovation - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
医疗健康

Psychiatric medication is in dire need of innovation

There can be no either/or in mental health — we must rigorously examine pharmaceutical and social solutions

The writer is the director of mental health at the Wellcome Trust

Psychiatric medication is controversial. While most recognise that mental health problems are caused by a tangle of psychological, social and biological factors, debates about solutions are polarised between those advocating for addressing environmental factors and those more interested in medication.

This point of contention is part of the reason that, for too many years, progress in psychiatric pharmaceutical development has been at a near standstill. Drugs work by acting on a “target” — often a protein or a receptor — to produce a therapeutic effect. Innovation in drug development is usually driven by the discovery of new targets. However, the vast majority of mental health medicines prescribed today have the same targets as their pre-1960 prototypes. Most of them were discovered by serendipity; we know surprisingly little about their underlying mechanisms. 

These treatments are far from perfect. Half of adults with depression don’t improve with antidepressants or antipsychotics. Some experience negative side effects, or difficulties in stopping the medication; there is much debate about their use in children and young people.

So why is it so hard to develop new medications that work?

The complexity of the brain is one challenge. Another is the lack of good animal models — for most areas of medicine an important early step for new treatments — because studying subjective experiences such as depression or delusions in a mouse poses obvious challenges.

Then there’s the issue of how mental health conditions are categorised and understood. With no validated biomarkers — scans, blood tests or other means to identify the precise condition — psychiatry can look like infectious disease before we had germ theory. 

And for those possible medicines that look promising, many don’t work in practice. On average, 73 per cent of psychiatric drug candidates fail to make it through Phase 2, the stage of clinical development that involves testing if a drug works well enough to warrant further investigation.

Moreover, to deliver strong results from clinical trials, researchers must be able to recruit large numbers of patients. This is far from easy — the complex systems through which people find clinical trials are often badly suited to engage people with mental health conditions. One researcher told us that they were only able to recruit 30 of their 700 required patients over a three-year period. 

This environment means private funding for mental health drug development is challenging — such risks concern investors. The situation is a catch-22: a scarce funding landscape limits researchers’ opportunities to assess promising targets and drug candidates. This in turn makes success less likely and investment riskier.

So how do we stimulate innovation in a neglected field? We could look to obesity as an example, where significant investment took an area making very slow progress to one with a huge uplift in discovery and resulting drug development.

There are signs that we are at the start of a new wave of discovery in psychiatric medications. The first new type of antipsychotic in over 50 years was approved for use in the US last year. Welsh biotech Draig Therapeutics recently announced they had secured $140mn to develop their new depression treatment. The use of AI and other large data approaches have the potential to transform the field. There’s an increased focus on unpacking existing medications such as antidepressants to understand how they work and how they can be improved. 

Wellcome are in the process of joining a large public-private consortium that has announced funding for scientists to hunt for biomarkers for conditions including mental illnesses. This could give us rich insights into the biology behind mental health conditions and galvanise innovative treatments.

To those who do not believe that pharmaceuticals are a way forward, I say I believe there can be no either/or in mental health. While we must rigorously examine non-pharmacological interventions, including digital and large-scale social policy interventions, we also need to explore potential medicines.

As a philanthropic organisation, Wellcome can shoulder some of the considerable risk involved in psychiatric drug development. But it is only with commitment from investors, industry, scientists and people with lived experience that we will find new medications that will transform the lives of millions across the globe for the better.

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

相关话题

乌克兰无人机袭击致索契俄罗斯油库起火

弗拉基米尔•泽连斯基对黑海设施遭远程打击表示欢迎,目前无人机和导弹的交火仍在持续。

我们不能把全球贸易的所有混乱都归咎于特朗普

世界贸易组织的许多体制和程序已经失灵,我们应当承认这一失败。

欧佩克+将石油产量配额上调至两年来最高水平

分析师预测,在该卡特尔取消减产后,原油将在今年年底前出现供应过剩。

中国出口会继续无视特朗普的贸易战吗?

我们可以预期英格兰银行利率制定者会释放哪些信号?美股还能继续上涨吗?

星巴克在曼哈顿对决中国的瑞幸咖啡

美国连锁店通过升级门店,并为顾客提供不同的服务方式,以提振销售。

澳大利亚偏远港口卷入美中安全博弈

澳大利亚总理安东尼•阿尔巴内塞因安全担忧誓言要收回达尔文港的控制权。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×