Safety pharmacology investigations on the nervous system: An industry survey.

The Safety Pharmacology Society (SPS) conducted an industry survey in 2015 to identify industry practices as they relate to central, peripheral and autonomic nervous system ('CNS') drug safety testing. One hundred fifty-eight (158) participants from Asia (16%), Europe (20%) and North America (56%) responded to the survey. 52% of participants were from pharmaceutical companies (>1000 employees). Oncology (67%) and neurology/psychiatry (66%) were the most frequent target indications pursued by companies followed by inflammation (48%), cardiovascular (43%), metabolic (39%), infectious (37%), orphan (32%) and respiratory (29%) diseases. Seizures (67% of participants), gait abnormalities (67%), tremors (65%), emesis (56%), sedation (52%) and salivation (47%) were the most commonly encountered CNS issues in pre-clinical drug development while headache (65%), emesis/nausea (60%), fatigue (51%) and dizziness (49%) were the most frequent issues encountered in Phase I clinical trials. 54% of respondents reported that a standard battery of tests applied to screen drug candidates was the approach most commonly used to address non-clinical CNS safety testing. A minority (14% of all participants) reported using electroencephalography (EEG) screening prior to animal inclusion on toxicology studies. The most frequent group size was n=8 for functional observation battery (FOB), polysomnography and seizure liability studies. FOB evaluations were conducted in a dedicated room (78%) by blinded personnel (66%) with control for circadian cycle (55%) effects (e.g., dosing at a standardized time; balancing time of day across treatment groups). The rat was reported as the most common species used for seizure liability, nerve conduction and drug-abuse liability testing.

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

INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.