Advertisement

Pharmaceutical Medicine

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 335–341 | Cite as

Safety Pharmacology Study Results and their Impact on the Design of First-in-human Trials for Authorised Oncology Therapies

  • Jane O’Sullivan
  • Stefano Ponzano
  • Milton Bonelli
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Safety pharmacology studies are conducted to elucidate possible safety risks on cardiovascular (CV), central nervous system (CNS) and respiratory systems, and are usually carried out prior to first-in-human (FIH) trials. These tests are either standalone tests, or have relevant endpoints integrated in repeat-dose toxicology studies.

Objective

To review safety pharmacology study results for authorised oncology therapies and to assess how these results have impacted the design of FIH trials of these agents.

Methods

Bearing in mind the 3Rs principle for animal use (reduction, refinement and replacement), the design of safety pharmacology studies and their outcome for 30 new anticancer medicinal products (both small molecules and biotechnology-derived products) authorised by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between 2011 and 2015 was reviewed. The impact of the safety pharmacology study results on the design of the FIH trials was also investigated.

Results

Our analysis shows that all CNS and respiratory safety pharmacology tests were negative, while for the CV system, 61% of small molecules had positive effects in vitro and/or in vivo and only one out of seven biotechnology-derived products had positive effects in vivo. Regarding the impact of safety pharmacology on clinical trial study design, CV safety pharmacology results for small molecules influenced FIH trial designs in 60% of cases.

Conclusions

Based on this subset of data in the oncology therapeutic area, results indicate that the use of safety pharmacology endpoints in repeat-dose toxicology tests could be further utilised as compared with stand-alone safety pharmacology studies, in particular for the CNS and respiratory systems.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Kevin Cunningham and Francesco Pignatti for their constructive comments.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

No external funding was used in the preparation of this manuscript. The contribution of JOS to this article relates to the period of employment in the Specialised Scientific Disciplines Department at the European Medicines Agency.

Conflict of interest

JOS, SP and MB declare that they have no conflicts of interest that might be relevant to the contents of this manuscript.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

40290_2018_246_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (240 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 240 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Tang J, Shalabi A, Hubbard-Lucey VM. Comprehensive analysis of the clinical immuno-oncology landscape. Ann Oncol. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx755 (Epub ahead of print).CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359–86.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29210 Epub 2014 Oct 9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rolfo C, Caglevic C, Santarpia M, Araujo A, Giovannetti E, Gallardo CD, Pauwels P, Mahave M. Immunotherapy in NSCLC: a promising and revolutionary weapon. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;995:97–125.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53156-4_5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Luke JJ, Flaherty KT, Ribas A, Long GV. Targeted agents and immunotherapies: optimizing outcomes in melanoma. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14(8):463–82.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.43 (Epub 2017 Apr 4).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Waring MJ, Arrowsmith J, Leach AR, Leeson PD, Mandrell S, Owen RM, et al. An analysis of the attrition of drug candidates from four major pharmaceutical companies. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015;14:475–86.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd4609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guideline on strategies to identify and mitigate risks for first-in-human and early clinical trials with investigational medicinal products. 2017. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2017/07/WC500232186.pdf. Accessed 23 Jul 2018.
  7. 7.
    Safety Pharmacology Studies for Human Pharmaceuticals S7A. 2000. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Safety/S7A/Step4/S7A_Guideline.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2017.
  8. 8.
    The Non-Clinical Evaluation of the Potential for Delayed Ventricular Repolarization (QT Interval Prolongation) by Human Pharmaceuticals S7B. 2005. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Safety/S7B/Step4/S7B_Guideline.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2017.
  9. 9.
    Guidance on Nonclinical Safety Studies for the Conduct of Human Clinical Trials and Marketing Authorization for Pharmaceuticals M3(R2). 2008. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Multidisciplinary/M3_R2/Step4/M3_R2__Guideline.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2017.
  10. 10.
    Nonclinical Evaluation for Anticancer Pharmaceuticals S9. 2009. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Safety/S9/Step4/S9_Step4_Guideline.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2017.
  11. 11.
    Lansita JA, Mounho-Zamora B. The development of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies: overview of the nonclinical safety assessment. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2015.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-014-0472-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Preclinical Safety Evaluation of Biotechnology-Derived Pharmaceuticals S6(R1). 2011. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Safety/S6_R1/Step4/S6_R1_Guideline.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2017.
  13. 13.
    Bowes J, Brown AJ, Hamon J, Jarolimek W, Sridhar A, Waldron G, et al. Reducing safety-related drug attrition: the use of in vitro pharmacological profiling. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012;11(12):909–22.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3845.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    1. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. 2010. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32010L0063&from=EN. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
  15. 15.
    Vicente J, Zusterzeel R, Johannesen L, Mason J, Sager P, Patel V, et al. Mechanistic model-informed proarrhythmic risk assessment of drugs: review of the “CiPA” initiative and design of a prospective clinical validation study. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018;103(1):54–66.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.896 (Epub 2017 Nov 16).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane O’Sullivan
    • 1
  • Stefano Ponzano
    • 1
  • Milton Bonelli
    • 1
  1. 1.European Medicines AgencyLondonUK

Personalised recommendations