Renal studies in safety pharmacology and toxicology: A survey conducted in the top 15 pharmaceutical companies.

With the recent development of more sensitive biomarkers to assess kidney injury preclinically, a survey was designed i) to investigate what strategies are used to investigate renal toxicity in both ICH S7A compliant Safety Pharmacology (SP) studies after a single dose of a compound and within repeat-dose toxicity studies by large pharmaceutical companies today; ii) to understand whether renal SP studies have impact or utility in drug development and/or if it may be more appropriate to assess renal effects after multiple doses of compounds; iii) to ascertain how much mechanistic work is performed by the top 15 largest pharmaceutical companies (as determined by R&D revenue size); iv) to gain an insight into the impact of the validation of DIKI biomarkers and their introduction in the safety evaluation paradigm; and v) to understand the impact of renal/urinary safety study data on progression of projects. Two short anonymous surveys were submitted to SP leaders of the top 15 pharmaceutical companies, as defined by 2012 R&D portfolio size. Fourteen multiple choice questions were designed to explore the strategies used to investigate renal effects in both ICH S7A compliant SP studies and within toxicology studies. A 67% and 60% response rate was obtained in the first and second surveys, respectively. Nine out of ten respondent companies conduct renal excretory measurements (eg. urine analysis) in toxicology studies whereas only five out of ten conduct specific renal SP studies; and all of those 5 also conduct the renal excretory measurements in toxicology studies. These companies measure and/or calculate a variety of parameters as part of these studies, and also on a case by case basis include regulatory qualified and non-qualified DIKI biomarkers. Finally, only one company has used renal/urinary functional data alone to stop a project, whereas the majority of respondents combine renal data with other target organ assessments to form an integrated decision-making set. These short surveys highlighted areas of similarity: a) urinary measurements are most commonly taken on repeat-dose toxicity studies, and b) renal SP studies are less often utilised. The two major differences are a) lack of consistent use of DIKI biomarkers in urinary safety studies and b) the way large pharmaceutical companies assess renal function. Finally, suggestions were made to improve the safety assessment methods for determining the safety of compounds with potential renal liability.

Benjamin A ，Gallacher DJ ，Greiter-Wilke A ，Guillon JM ，Kasai C ，Ledieu D ，Levesque P ，Prelle K ，Ratcliffe S ，Sannajust F ，Valentin JP ... -  《-》

How do the top 12 pharmaceutical companies operate safety pharmacology?

How does safety pharmacology operate in large pharmaceutical companies today? By understanding our current position, can we prepare safety pharmacology to successfully navigate the complex process of drug discovery and development? A short anonymous survey was conducted, by invitation, to safety pharmacology representatives of the top 12 pharmaceutical companies, as defined by 2009 revenue figures. A series of multiple choice questions was designed to explore group size, accountabilities, roles and responsibilities of group members, outsourcing policy and publication record. A 92% response rate was obtained. Six out of 11 companies have 10 to 30 full time equivalents in safety pharmacology, who hold similar roles and responsibilities; although the majority of members are not qualified at PhD level or equivalent. Accountabilities were similar across companies and all groups have accountability for core battery in vivo studies and problem solving activities but differences do exist for example with in vitro safety screening and pharmacodynamic/pharmokinetic modeling (PK/PD). The majority of companies outsource less than 25% of studies, with in vitro profiling being the most commonly outsourced activity. Finally, safety pharmacology groups are publishing 1 to 4 articles each year. This short survey has highlighted areas of similarity and differences in the way large pharmaceutical companies operate safety pharmacology.

Ewart L ，Gallacher DJ ，Gintant G ，Guillon JM ，Leishman D ，Levesque P ，McMahon N ，Mylecraine L ，Sanders M ，Suter W ，Wallis R ，Valentin JP ... -  《-》

Safety pharmacology investigations in toxicology studies: an industry survey.

The Safety Pharmacology (SP) Society (SPS) conducted an industry survey in 2012 in an attempt to define current industry practices as they relate to inclusion of safety pharmacology (SP) endpoints into Toxicology studies. A total of 361 participants from Asia (9.1%), Europe (19.4%) and North America (71.4%) responded to the survey. The preponderance of respondents were toxicologists (53.2%) followed by safety pharmacologists (27.2%) and scientists involved in the conduct of both disciplines (19.6%). Most participants (58.6%) were from pharmaceutical companies employing more than 500 employees. A majority (68.2%) reported having experience in designing, performing or interpreting the SP component of a study when performed as part of a toxicology study. Some participants (42.0%) had submitted data to a regulatory agency where ICHS7 studies were performed as part of a toxicology study rather than as a standalone study. When comparing species that were used in studies in which SP was added to toxicology studies, canines were the most frequently reported animals used for new chemical entities (NCE) whereas non-human (NH) primates were the most frequent for the assessment of biological agents. The most frequent primary motivator for adding ICHS7 SP endpoints to regulatory toxicology studies was to generate additional data to allow for determination of an integrated risk assessment thereby testing Confidence in Safety (CIS) to better manage and/or mitigate risk. The current ability to add safety pharmacology endpoints into regulatory toxicology studies was used to address a specific concern (by 42.1% of respondents) to allow management of risk more effectively (36.8%) or to generate data that contributes to cessation of the progression of a compound (21.1%). For an NCE, SP measurements in toxicology studies were conducted in addition to standalone SP studies (by 40.6% of respondents) or in addition/instead of standalone safety pharmacology studies (by 39.8% of respondents). For biological agents, a majority (74.3%) indicated SP measurements in toxicology were conducted instead of standalone studies as outlined in the ICHS6 guideline while inclusion of SP endpoints in toxicology studies for biological agents in addition to standalone studies was reported by only 25.7% of the respondents. The survey highlights that obtaining regulatory agreement for the proposed combined SP/Tox study designs may be useful before study conduct in some cases. Respondents suggest that such discussion could occur at the pre-IND meeting before the IND/CTA enabling program.

Authier S ，Vargas HM ，Curtis MJ ，Holbrook M ，Pugsley MK ... -  《-》

Benchmarking safety pharmacology regulatory packages and best practice.

Lindgren S ，Bass AS ，Briscoe R ，Bruse K ，Friedrichs GS ，Kallman MJ ，Markgraf C ，Patmore L ，Pugsley MK ... -  《-》

Renal Safety Pharmacology in Drug Discovery and Development.

Benjamin A ，Nogueira da Costa A ，Delaunois A ，Rosseels ML ，Valentin JP ... -  《-》