Is there a role for the no observed adverse effect level in safety pharmacology?

In nonclinical toxicology the highest dose or exposure without test article-related adverse effects, known as the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL), is a variable that may be determined. In safety pharmacology the vast majority of the endpoints measured are quantitative numeric functional endpoints such as changes in heart rate, blood pressure or respiratory frequency, endpoints that are usually not assessed using a defined framework of adversity. Therefore, we asked the question: is there a role for the NOAEL in safety pharmacology? To help answer this question, we conducted a survey via the Safety Pharmacology Society. We found that within safety pharmacology there is no formal definition of adversity and no guidance on defining NOAEL. We also found, perhaps unsurprisingly, there is no agreed rubric for using a NOAEL in safety pharmacology and we learned that the NOAEL is not a requirement in order to progress a new investigational drug through the regulatory process. Thus, a summary label such as NOAEL lacks nuance and disregards context in relation to the nature and the severity of the safety pharmacology findings. Consequently, defining 'adversity' and determining a NOAEL in safety pharmacology studies are not recommended since the range of functional endpoints investigated do not conform to a binary 'toxic/non-toxic' rubric. Focusing on describing test article-related effects on safety pharmacology endpoints, using reasoned arguments as part of an integrated risk assessment, will ensure that the clinical pharmacologists and regulatory bodies see a clear description of relevant findings at each dose or exposure level.

Evaluation of the PhysioTel™ Digital M11 cardiovascular telemetry implant in socially housed cynomolgus monkeys up to 16weeks after surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The novel PhysioTel™ Digital M11 telemetry implant was evaluated in socially housed monkeys with respect to both safety pharmacological cardiovascular (arterial blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR) and electrocardiogram (ECG)) and toxicological (clinical pathology and histopathology) endpoints. METHODS: Telemetry and clinical pathology data were obtained repeatedly up to 16weeks after surgery in four female cynomolgus monkeys, followed by necropsy. Due to postsurgical complications, one spare animal was included and only toxicological endpoints from the affected (fifth animal) were reported. Continuous telemetry recordings were conducted at periods without dosing and after ascending doses of moxifloxacin (0, 10, 30, 100mg/kg) and L-NAME (0, 0.1, 1, 10mg/kg). Additionally, a retrospective power analysis was conducted based on baseline M11 implant data from 32 other animals. RESULTS: During periods without dosing, the cardiovascular endpoints were stable over time and within normal ranges. Moxifloxacin and L-NAME elicited the expected pharmacological responses with dose-dependent increase in QTca (8, 17, 22ms) and BP (mean BP: 12, 21, 34mmHg), respectively. Expected intravascular and tissue reactions were observed at the sites of the BP catheter and the transmitter. Signs of infection (localised to the transmitter implantation site with associated systemic effects) was noted in the fifth animal. No systemic pathologies were seen in any animals. Power analysis (80% power) indicated that the minimal differences which can be detected in a parallel group design (n=6) are 7mmHg (mean BP), 16bpm (HR), 12ms (QTca). DISCUSSION: The M11 implant provided stable, high quality ECG and BP data for a duration covering the length of sub-chronic repeated dose toxicity studies without important impact on toxicological endpoints. Adequate power in order to elucidate major treatment-related cardiovascular effects was demonstrated. However to avoid post-surgical complications the implantation procedures should be carefully considered before using the method.