Is having even more gene-disease associations still useful for picking drug targets?

For which types of programs does it matter?

Has pharma shifted focus towards genetically validated targets?

New paper by me, @mnelsonxy, @DongCoco90417, & @jivecast 👇 https://t.co/vi3vfaXQRudoi.org/10.1101/2023.0…
In 2015, @mnelsonxy showed drugs w/ targets backed by human genetics more often succeed in trials & reach approval . Replicated here- more Launched drugs than drugs in development have "genetic support" https://t.co/dvi9YqoNXdpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26121088/

To map the landscape of neurodegenerative disease clinical trials we analyzed 20 years of trial registrations.

The paper: nature.com/articles/s4159…

My blog post: cureffi.org/2022/10/24/pre…

Key findings in this thread 👇 Who is running trials and of what kind of interventions? In terms of raw count of trials, academia/govt/nonprofits run more than industry, and many trials test devices, procedures, or behavior (diet, exercise etc).

1/ Our study of genetic prion disease age of onset & its implications for clinical trials, is now on @biorxivpreprint!

https://twitter.com/biorxivpreprint/status/1034893926065471489

Blog post forthcoming next week. For now, a quick tweetstorm. 2/ From day 1 of predictive genetic testing, Sonia & I wanted to know WHEN will she develop the disease? We asked collaborators to help us aggregate the world's largest (and only public) dataset on age of onset in genetic prion disease (N=1,094) to try to answer this question.