The pipelines of pharmaceutical companies are filled with thousands of promising new compounds for a plethora of indications. Yet, a close review of the drugs that have recently been in clinical trials quickly reveals that only a handful of drugs under evaluation in women with endometriosis can be genuinely qualified as truly innovative and breakthrough drugs. Why is there such an industry-wide lukewarm interest in drug research and development for endometriosis/adenomyosis? Why are pharmaceutical companies so reluctant to initiate programs or invest in academic research in endometriosis/adenomyosis? It is evident that a substantial part of the novel druggable targets originate from research in academia. However, only the pharmaceutical industry has the resources and expertise to bring drugs to patients. In other words, we are fully dependent on the pharmaceutical industry to bring new therapeutics to the market. The aim of this editorial is to make scientists from academia aware of the enormous complexity of the drug development process, the drivers that propel pharmaceutical companies to initiate new programs and to prioritize their portfolios, the value of intellectual property rights, and also about the importance of scientific rigor, predictive translational models, and biomarkers. At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry must be made aware of the enormous opportunity at hand, as the current patient population with endometriosis/adenomyosis is just the tip of the iceberg. We hope that the insights presented here will enable the endometriosis/adenomyosis research community to find ways to valorize their knowledge and attract the interest of the industry.
EskenaziBWarnerML. Epidemiology of endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1997;24(2):235–258.
3.
DennyEMannCH. Endometriosis-associated dyspareunia: the impact on women’s lives. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2007;33(3):189–193.
4.
FourquetJBaezLFigueroaMIriarteRIFloresI. Quantification of the impact of endometriosis symptoms on health-related quality of life and work productivity. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(1):107–112.
5.
NnoahamKEHummelshojLWebsterP; Endometriosis Research Foundation Global Study of Women’s Health consortium. Impact of endometriosis on quality of life and work productivity: a multicenter study across ten countries. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(2):366–373 e8.
6.
CulleyLLawCHudsonN. The social and psychological impact of endometriosis on women’s lives: a critical narrative review. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(6):625–639.
7.
LovkvistLBostromPEdlundMOlovssonM. Age-related differences in quality of life in Swedish women with endometriosis. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2016;25(6):646–653.
8.
De GraaffAAD’HoogheTMDunselmanGA. The significant effect of endometriosis on physical, mental and social wellbeing: results from an international cross-sectional survey. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(10):2677–2685.
9.
KleinSD’HoogheTMeulemanCDirksenCDunselmanGSimoensS. What is the societal burden of endometriosis-associated symptoms? A prospective Belgian study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;28(1):116–124.
10.
SimoensSDunselmanGDirksenC. The burden of endometriosis: costs and quality of life of women with endometriosis and treated in referral centres. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(5):1292–1299.
11.
SimoensSHummelshojLDunselmanG. Endometriosis cost assessment (the EndoCost study): a cost-of-illness study protocol. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2011;71(3):170–176.
12.
SimoensSMeulemanCD’HoogheT. Non-health-care costs associated with endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(9):2363–2367.
13.
GuoSW. An overview of the current status of clinical trials on endometriosis: issues and concerns. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(1):183–190 e4.
14.
GuoSWEversJL. Lack of transparency of clinical trials on endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(6):1281–1290.
15.
VercelliniPCrosignaniPSomiglianaEViganoPFrattaruoloMPFedeleL. ‘Waiting for Godot’: a commonsense approach to the medical treatment of endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(1):3–13.
16.
FarquharCBrosensI. Medical and surgical management of adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20(4):603–616.
17.
BergeronCAmantFFerenczyA. Pathology and physiopathology of adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20(4):511–521.
18.
BenagianoGHabibaMBrosensI. The pathophysiology of uterine adenomyosis: an update. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(3):572–579.
19.
KitawakiJ. Adenomyosis: the pathophysiology of an oestrogen-dependent disease. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20(4):493–502.
20.
BrosensIA. Endometriosis – a disease because it is characterized by bleeding. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;176(2):263–267.
21.
GuoSWDingDShenMLiuX. Dating endometriotic ovarian cysts based on the content of cyst fluid and its potential clinical implications. Reprod Sc. 2015;22(7):873–883.
22.
ZhangQDuanJLiuXGuoSW. Platelets drive smooth muscle metaplasia and fibrogenesis in endometriosis through epithelial–mesenchymal transition and fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transdifferentiation. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2016;428:1–16.
23.
ZhangQDuanJOlsonMFazleabasAGuoSW. Cellular changes consistent with epithelial–mesenchymal transition and fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transdifferentiation in the progression of experimental endometriosis in baboons. Reprod Sci. 2016;23(10):1409–1421.
24.
ZhangQLiuXGuoSW. Progressive development of endometriosis and its hindrance by anti-platelet treatment in mice with induced endometriosis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;34(2):124–136.
25.
LiuXShenSQiQZhangHGuoS-W. Corroborating evidence for platelet-induced epithelial–mesenchymal transition and fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transdifferentiation in the development of adenomyosis. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(4):734–749.
26.
ShenMLiuXZhangHGuoSW. Transforming growth factor β1 signaling coincides with mediated epithelial–mesenchymal transition and fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transdifferentiation in drive the development of adenomyosis in mice. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(2):355–369.
27.
DunselmanGAVermeulenNBeckerC. ESHRE guideline: management of women with endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(3):400–412.
28.
GroothuisP. Precision medicine: getting from the lab to the clinic. Presented at The 13th World Congress on Endometriosis. Vancouver, Canada; 2017.
29.
Leonardo-PintoJPBenetti-PintoCLCursinoKYelaDA. Dienogest and deep infiltrating endometriosis: the remission of symptoms is not related to endometriosis nodule remission. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;211:108–111.
30.
KnellerR. The importance of new companies for drug discovery: origins of a decade of new drugs. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(11):867–882.
31.
PatridgeEVGareissPCKinchMSHoyerDW. An analysis of original research contributions toward FDA-approved drugs. Drug Discov Today. 2015;20(10):1182–1187.
PaulSMMytelkaDSDunwiddieCT. How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(3):203–214.
35.
OutHJ. Leve het geneesmiddel!. Amsterdam: Prometeus; 2016.
36.
VallancePWilliamsPDolleryC. The future is much closer collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry and academic medical centers. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;87(5):525–527.
37.
RangHPHillRG. Choosing the project. In: HillRG, ed. Drug Discovery and Development: Technology in Transition. Edinburgh, UK: Churchill Livingstone; 2012:57–62.
38.
BegleyCGEllisLM. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483(7391):531–533.
39.
PrinzFSchlangeTAsadullahK. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10(9):712.
40.
IoannidisJP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124.
41.
KolaILandisJ. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004;3(8):711–715.
42.
CookDBrownDAlexanderR. Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca’s drug pipeline: a five-dimensional framework. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2014;13(16):419–431.
43.
PullenNBirchCLDouglasGJHussainQPruimboom-BreesIWalleyRJ. The translational challenge in the development of new and effective therapies for endometriosis: a review of confidence from published preclinical efficacy studies. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(6):791–802.
44.
de CaesteckerMHumphreysBDLiuKD. Bridging translation by improving preclinical study design in AKI. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26(12):2905–2916.
45.
D’HoogheTM. Clinical relevance of the baboon as a model for the study of endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 1997;68(4):613–625.
46.
HarirchianPGashawILipskindST. Lesion kinetics in a non-human primate model of endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(8):2341–2351.
47.
AnglesioMSPapadopoulosNAyhanA. Cancer-associated mutations in endometriosis without cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(19):1835–1848.
48.
AhnSHMonsantoSPMillerCSinghSSThomasRTayadeC. Pathophysiology and immune dysfunction in endometriosis. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:795976.
49.
ViganoPCandianiMMonnoAGiacominiEVercelliniPSomiglianaE. Time to redefine endometriosis including its pro-fibrotic nature. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(3):347–352.
50.
NaqviHIlaganYKrikunGTaylorHS. Altered genome-wide methylation in endometriosis. Reprod Sci. 2014;21(10):1237–1243.
51.
FritschMSchmidtNGrotickeI. Application of a patient derived xenograft model for predicative study of uterine fibroid disease. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0142429.
52.
VannucciniSTostiCCarmonaF. Pathogenesis of adenomyosis: an update on molecular mechanisms. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;35(5):592–601.
53.
MoriTKyokuwaMNagasawaH. Animal model of uterine adenomyosis: induction of the lesion in rats by ectopic pituitary isografting. Lab Anim Sci. 1998;48(1):64–68.
54.
ParrottEButterworthMGreenAWhiteINGreavesP. Adenomyosis – a result of disordered stromal differentiation. Am J Pathol. 2001;159(2):623–630.
55.
OttoCSchkoldowJKrahlEFuchsIUlbrichHF. Use of a murine endometriosis interna model for the characterization of compounds that effectively treat human endometriosis. Exp Ther Med. 2012;3(3):410–414.
56.
BellofioreNEllerySJMamrotJWalkerDWTemple-SmithPDickinsonH. First evidence of a menstruating rodent: the spiny mouse (Acomys cahirinus). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(1):40.e1–40.e11.
57.
FiebigHHMaierABurgerAM. Clonogenic assay with established human tumour xenografts: correlation of in vitro to in vivo activity as a basis for anticancer drug discovery. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40(6):802–820.
58.
MalaneyPNicosiaSVDaveV. One mouse, one patient paradigm: new avatars of personalized cancer therapy. Cancer Lett. 2014;344(1):1–12.
59.
KilkennyCBrowneWCuthillICEmersonMAltmanDG; Group NCRRGW. Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments: the ARRIVE guidelines. Br J Pharmacol. 2010;160(7):1577–1579.
VincentKKennedySStrattonP. Pain scoring in endometriosis: entry criteria and outcome measures for clinical trials. Report from the Art and Science of Endometriosis meeting. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(1):62–67.
62.
TaylorHSGiudiceLCLesseyBA. Treatment of endometriosis-associated pain with Elagolix, an oral GnRH antagonist. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(1):28–40.
63.
SchulzeURingelM. What matters most in commercial success: first-in-class or best-in-class?Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12(6):419–420.
64.
BeckerCMLauferMRStrattonP. World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project: I. Surgical phenotype data collection in endometriosis research. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(5):1213–1222.
65.
FassbenderARahmiogluNVitonisAF. World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project: IV. Tissue collection, processing, and storage in endometriosis research. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(5):1244–1253.
66.
RahmiogluNFassbenderAVitonisAF. World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonization Project: III. Fluid biospecimen collection, processing, and storage in endometriosis research. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(5):1233–1243.
67.
VitonisAFVincentKRahmiogluN. World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonization Project: II. Clinical and covariate phenotype data collection in endometriosis research. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(5):1223–1232.
