How do the top 12 pharmaceutical companies operate safety pharmacology?

INTRODUCTION: 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? METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: This short survey has highlighted areas of similarity and differences in the way large pharmaceutical companies operate safety pharmacology.

Evaluation of novel biomarkers of nephrotoxicity in two strains of rat treated with Cisplatin.

Cisplatin is an anticancer agent that induces renal proximal tubule lesions in many species. Studies were conducted in Sprague-Dawley and Han-Wistar rats to evaluate the utility of novel preclinical biomarkers of nephrotoxicity for renal lesions caused by this compound. Groups of 10 males of each strain were given a single intraperitoneal injection of 0.3, 1, or 3 mg/kg cisplatin and were sacrificed on days 2, 3, and 5. The novel biomarkers α-glutathione-S-transferase (α-GST) (for proximal tubular injury), µ-glutathione-S-transferase (µ-GST) (for distal tubular injury), clusterin (for general kidney injury), and renal papillary antigen-1 (RPA-1) (for collecting duct injury) were measured in urine by enzyme immunoassay. Histologically, degeneration and necrosis of the S3 segment of the renal proximal tubule were observed on day 2 (Han-Wistar) and days 3 and 5 (both strains) at 1 and 3 mg/kg. Results showed that in both strains of rats, urinary α-GST and clusterin can be detected in urine soon after injury, are more sensitive than BUN and serum creatinine, and therefore are usable as noninvasive biomarkers of proximal tubule injury. Changes in both µ-GST or RPA-1 were considered to represent secondary minor effects of proximal tubular injury on distal segments of the nephron.