Reach Us +447897072958
All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal

Mini Review - (2023) Volume 12, Issue 2

An Introduction to Drug Discovery for Dermatology

Andrew Wood*
*Correspondence: Andrew Wood, Department of Drug Discovery, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Belgium, Email:
Department of Drug Discovery, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Belgium

Received: 02-Feb-2023, Manuscript No. IJDRT-23-94949; Editor assigned: 04-Feb-2023, Pre QC No. P-94949; Reviewed: 16-Feb-2023, QC No. Q-94949; Revised: 21-Feb-2023, Manuscript No. R-94949; Published: 28-Feb-2023, DOI: 10.37421/2277-1506.2023.12.391


The process of discovering new drugs is complicated, slow, risky and costly. For each new drug to be introduced, it is estimated that it will take between 10 and 15 years and an investment of $1.8 billion. About one in every 24 projects delivers a drug successfully, with many failures occurring toward the end of costly Phase II and Phase III clinical trials. The number of projects required at each stage to deliver an average new drug launch can be calculated using the cumulative success rate. The sum of all projects required at a given stage of development to deliver a single drug launch is referred to as the total cost. Finding a drug for dermatology is generally the same as finding a drug for any other indication. A low-molecular-weight small molecule can be taken orally, applied topically, or injected to treat dermatological conditions. A biological agent, such as an antibody, RNA silencing, peptide replacement, or cell therapy, may also be the alternative. Each kind of medication enjoys benefits and impediments that should be considered during advancement. In a similar vein, specialist specialists in drug design manufacturing and clinical development will be required to contribute to the discovery and development of various drug classes.


RNA silencing • Peptide replacement • Cell therapy


Because of the complexity of drug development, no one individual can discover a drug. Closely involved individuals are in this way urged to search out colleagues or accomplices who can supplement their ranges of abilities. There has been a significant rise in the number of non-profit drug discovery facilities over the past ten years. There are 149 drug discovery donsortium centres worldwide, according to the Academic Drug Discovery Consortium. While some of these centers concentrate on particular therapeutic areas, the vast majority of them work on a variety of diseases and targets. The centers can provide a variety of capabilities that enable them to collaborate in the early to mid-stage project management process. Despite the fact that there are a few centers that are capable of advancing projects through all phases of the drug discovery process, their number is growing.

Literature Review

On their websites, the majority of pharmaceutical companies explain how they collaborate with academic or clinical partners. Almirall, LEO Pharma, Galderma-Nestlé Skin Health, Pierre Fabre are a few examples of businesses that are interested in dermatology. This list is not exhaustive and there are many other businesses that are interested in dermatology. The project will need to locate a hit a small molecule that serves as the project's starting point for novel biological targets for which no drugs have been developed. High throughput screening is the most prevalent screening technique. This entails testing tens of thousands to millions of distinct chemical compounds either directly against the drug target biochemically (target-based screening) or in a cellular system (phenotypic screening). Both of these methods are used. To ensure that active hits are genuine positives, they need to be carefully evaluated. In the hit to lead phase, the hit is then optimized. The chemical structure is changed in an iterative design-make-test method to improve activity, selectivity and physical properties [1].


The subsequent leads are tried to decide their pharmacokinetic profile and bearableness in creatures. On the off chance that the leads are anticipated to be protected and successful, they are tried in creature models of sickness. However, if an appropriate animal model is unavailable, they may be tested in cellular models. The project moves on to lead optimization if a lead is active in the animal model and no other significant issues have been discovered. In LO, multipara metric enhancement is led to track down the ideal equilibrium of properties, including the medication's actual attributes and organic movement along with the pharmacokinetic and security profile. The drug's molecular structure has not changed at this point. The medication has been found. Before beginning human trials, it will undergo regulatory toxicity testing and the development of a manufacturing process (preclinical development) [2-5].

The use of cellular and animal models of drug exposure, safety and efficacy is one way that LO can be a lengthy process that necessitates expensive assays and experiments. A preclinical candidate will be identified at the conclusion of LO if it is successful. In most cases, getting a patent position in a project that starts on a library screen is easiest. However, it is the most time-consuming, difficult and expensive method of developing a drug. It is essential to point out that drug discovery efforts aimed at novel biological targets have historically not primarily focused on dermatology. Phosphodiesterase 4 and Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors, for instance, were first examined in dermatological clinical trials for non-skin conditions [6].


As a result, screening approaches to drug discovery are uncommon in dermatology. Reformulation is a subcategory of repositioning that is normal in dermatology. It is frequently utilized when repositioning an existing medication for use in a dermatological condition is desired, but the medication has been developed for oral use. In addition, it is utilized in the process of combining two effective agents into a single formulation in order to simplify treatment plans or to provide the ideal dosage for increased efficacy. The reformulation of oral medications for skin utilize still requires improvement of a protected and patientaccommodating detailing and testing in creature models to survey the security and viability of the new plan before human clinical preliminaries.



Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.


  1. Preston, Jenny, Simon R. Stones, Hugh Davies and Jennifer Preston, et al. "How to involve children and young people in what is, after all, their research." Arch Dis Child 104 (2019): 494-500.
  2. Google Scholar, Indexed at

  3. Davies, Hugh T., Bob Phillips, Jennifer Preston and Simon R. Stones. "Making research central to good paediatric practice." Arch Dis Child 104 (2019): 385-388.
  4. Google Scholar, Crossref  

  5. Carleer, Jacqueline and Janina Karres. Juvenile animal studies and pediatric drug development: A European regulatory perspectiveBirth Defects Res B Dev Reprod Toxicol 92 (2011): 254-260.
  6. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at 

  7. Maagdenberg, Hedy, Susanne JH Vijverberg, Marc B. Bierings and Bruce C. Carleton, et al. "Pharmacogenomics in pediatric patients: Towards personalized medicine." Pediatric Drugs 18 (2016): 251-260.
  8. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at 

  9. Van den Anker, John, Michael D. Reed, Karel Allegaert and Gregory L. Kearns. "Developmental changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics." J Clin Pharmacol58 (2018): S10-S25.
  10. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  11. Ruggieri, Lucia, Donato Bonifazi, Annalisa Landi and Fedele Bonifazi, et al. "Survey by TEDDY European Network of Excellence for Paediatric Clinical Research demonstrates potential for Europe‐wide trials." Acta Paediatr 109 (2020): 607-612.
  12. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at