Classification or non-classification of substances with positive tumor findings in animal studies: Guidance by the German MAK commission.

One of the important tasks of the German Senate Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area (known as the MAK Commission) is in the evaluation of a potential for carcinogenicity of hazardous substances at the workplace. Often, this evaluation is critically based on data on carcinogenic responses seen in animal studies and, if positive tumor responses have been observed, this will mostly lead to a classification of the substance under investigation into one of the classes for carcinogens. However, there are cases where it can be demonstrated with a very high degree of confidence that the tumor findings in the experimental animals are not relevant for humans at the workplace and, therefore, the MAK Commission will not classify the respective substance into one of the classes for carcinogens. This paper will summarize the general criteria used by the MAK Commission for the categorization into "carcinogen" and "non-carcinogen" and compare this procedure with those used by other national and international organizations.

High-dose amphotericin: yay or nay? A case series and literature review.

Invasive fungal infections pose significant morbidity and mortality risks, particularly those caused by moulds. Available antifungal classes are limited by toxicities and are increasingly susceptible to resistance, particularly amongst challenging fungal pathogens. The purpose of this case series and literature review was to characterize the use of a high-dose lipid formulation of amphotericin B. A case series is presented including patients who received high-dose lipid formulation amphotericin B (≥7.5 mg/kg/day) between June 2012 and August 2021. Additionally, a systematic literature review was conducted by searching the PubMed database for English-language studies involving individuals who received high-dose amphotericin B therapy (≥7.5 mg/kg) using lipid formulations. Nine patients were included in the case series, receiving an average of 8.9 ± 1.3 mg/kg liposomal amphotericin B over a mean of 11.0 ± 10.8 days predominantly for mould infections including Mucorales, aspergillosis and Fusarium. The patients were primarily cared for in intensive care units, with varying treatment histories and outcomes. A total of 11 studies (n=260 patients) met inclusion criteria for the literature review. Responses to high-dose liposomal amphotericin B ranged from 8% to 100%, often showing favourable outcomes. High doses of liposomal amphotericin B were well tolerated both in the case series and in published literature, with serum creatinine changes being the most commonly reported adverse event. However, multi-patient studies continue to report less than favourable (range 8-62%) response rates. High-dose liposomal amphotericin B, either alone or in combination with other antifungal agents, might be a viable strategy for managing invasive fungal infections when few treatment choices exist. This article is part of the Challenges and strategies in the management of invasive fungal infections Special Issue: https://www.drugsincontext.com/special_issues/challenges-and-strategies-in-the-management-of-invasive-fungal-infections.

Phase 1 Clinical Trials of Small Molecules: Evolution and State of the Art.

BACKGROUND: Phase 1 studies comprise the first exposure of a promising new chemical entity in healthy volunteers or, when appropriate, in patients. To assure a solid foundation for subsequent drug development, this first step must carefully assess the safety and tolerance of a new compound and often provide some indication of potential effect, so that a safe dose or dose range can be confidently selected for the initial Phase 2 efficacy study in the target patient population. METHODS: This review was based on a literature search using both Google Scholar and PubMed, dated back to 1970, using search terms including "healthy volunteers", "Phase 1", and "normal volunteers", and also based on the authors' own experience conducting Phase 1 clinical trials. This paper reviews the history of Phase 1 studies of small molecules and their rapid evolution, focusing on the critical single and multiple dose studies, their designs, methodology, use of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling, application of potentially helpful biomarkers, study stopping criteria, and novel study designs. RESULTS: We advocate for determining the safe dose range of a new compound by conducting careful dose escalation in a well-staffed inpatient setting, defining the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) by reaching the minimally intolerated dose (MID). The dose immediately below the MID is then defined as the MTD. This is best accomplished by using appropriately screened patients for the target indication, as patients in many CNS indications often tolerate doses differently than healthy non-patients. Biomarkers for safety and pharmacodynamic measures can also assist in further defining a safe and potentially effective dose range for subsequent clinical trial phases. CONCLUSION: Phase 1 studies can yield critical insights into the pharmacology of a new compound in man and offer perhaps the only development period in which the dose range can be safely and thoroughly explored. Phase 1 studies often contain multiple endpoint objectives, the reconciliation of which can present a dilemma for drug developers and study investigators alike, but which can crucially determine whether a compound can survive to the next step in the drug development process.

Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of allopregnanolone as a regenerative therapeutic for Alzheimer's disease: A single and multiple ascending dose phase 1b/2a clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Allopregnanolone is an endogenous neurosteroid with the potential to be a novel regenerative therapeutic for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Foundations of mechanistic understanding and well-established preclinical safety efficacy make it a viable candidate. METHODS: A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, single and multiple ascending dose trial was conducted. Intravenous allopregnanolone or placebo was administered once-per-week for 12 weeks with a 1-month follow-up. Participants with early AD (mild cognitive impairment due to AD or mild AD), a Mini-Mental State Examination score of 20-26 inclusive, and age ≥55 years were randomized (6:2 to three allopregnanolone dosing cohorts or one placebo cohort). Primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters and maximally tolerated dose (MTD). Exploratory endpoints included cognitive and imaging biomarkers. RESULTS: A total of 24 participants completed the trial. Allopregnanolone was safe and well tolerated in all study participants. No differences were observed between treatment arms in the occurrence and severity of adverse events (AE). Most common AE were mild to moderate in severity and included rash (n = 4 [22%]) and fatigue (n = 3 [17%]). A single non-serious AE, dizziness, was attributable to treatment. There was one serious AE not related to treatment. Pharmacokinetics indicated a predictable linear dose-response in plasma concentration of allopregnanolone after intravenous administration over 30 minutes. The maximum plasma concentrations for the 2 mg, 4 mg, 6 mg, and 10 mg dosages were 14.53 ng/mL (+/-7.31), 42.05 ng/mL (+/-14.55), 60.07 ng/mL (+/-12.8), and 137.48 ng/mL (+/-38.69), respectively. The MTD was established based on evidence of allopregnanolone-induced mild sedation at the highest doses; a sex difference in the threshold for sedation was observed (males 10 mg; females 14 mg). No adverse outcomes on cognition or magnetic resonance imaging-based imaging outcomes were evident. CONCLUSIONS: Allopregnanolone was well tolerated and safe across all doses in persons with early AD. Safety, MTD, and PK profiles support advancement of allopregnanolone as a regenerative therapeutic for AD to a phase 2 efficacy trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT02221622.

Conflicting views on chemical carcinogenesis arising from the design and evaluation of rodent carcinogenicity studies.

Conflicting views have been expressed frequently on assessments of human cancer risk of environmental agents based on animal carcinogenicity data; this is primarily because of uncertainties associated with extrapolations of toxicologic findings from studies in experimental animals to human circumstances. Underlying these uncertainties are issues related to how experiments are designed, how rigorously hypotheses are tested, and to what extent assertions extend beyond actual findings. National and international health agencies regard carcinogenicity findings in well-conducted experimental animal studies as evidence of potential carcinogenic risk to humans. Controversies arise when both positive and negative carcinogenicity data exist for a specific agent or when incomplete mechanistic data suggest a possible species difference in response. Issues of experimental design and evaluation that might contribute to disparate results are addressed in this article. To serve as reliable sources of data for the evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of environmental agents, experimental studies must include a) animal models that are sensitive to the end points under investigation; b) detailed characterization of the agent and the administered doses; c) challenging doses and durations of exposure (at least 2 years for rats and mice); d) sufficient numbers of animals per dose group to be capable of detecting a true effect; e) multiple dose groups to allow characterization of dose-response relationships, f) complete and peer-reviewed histopathologic evaluations; and g) pairwise comparisons and analyses of trends based on survival-adjusted tumor incidence. Pharmacokinetic models and mechanistic hypotheses may provide insights into the biological behavior of the agent; however, they must be adequately tested before being used to evaluate human cancer risk.

"No patient left behind": an alternative to "the War on Cancer" metaphor.

The War on Cancer began with President Nixon's National Cancer Act of 1971. Treatment-related 'collateral damage' to healthy cells and tissues that reduces quality of life is an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of the overriding imperative to "win the war." In the face of a quality of life decrement, patients are encouraged with militaristic turns-of-phrases to "soldier on," "fight it," and "never say die." Rather than this dysfunctional imagery, which relegates patients to the status of mere cogs in the ever-grinding wheel of the clinical war machine and encourages the practice of disease-centered medicine, we propose an alternate analogy/organizing principle borrowed from the realm of education: No patient left behind.

An open-label phase 1 dose-escalation clinical trial of a single intravenous administration of gemcitabine in dogs with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: A broad range of gemcitabine dosages have been used in dogs. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: To determine maximally tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), and preliminary antitumor activity of intravenous administration of gemcitabine in dogs with advanced solid tumors. ANIMALS: Twenty-two client-owned dogs. METHODS: Dogs with advanced cancer were prospectively enrolled in an open-label Phase 1 study of gemcitabine. Gemcitabine was administered as a 30-minute intravenous bolus starting at 800 mg/m(2), using escalation of 50 mg/m(2) increments with 3 dogs per dose level. MTD was established based on the number of dogs experiencing DLT assessed after 1 cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicosis. Additional dogs were enrolled at MTD to better characterize tolerability, and to assess the extent and duration of gemcitabine excretion. RESULTS: Twenty-two dogs were treated at 4 dose levels, ranging from 800 to 950 mg/m(2). Neutropenia was identified as DLT. MTD was 900 mg/m(2). DLT consisting of grade 4 febrile neutropenia was observed at 950 mg/m(2) in 2 dogs. There were no nonhematologic DLTs. Twenty dogs received multiple doses, and none had evidence of severe toxicosis from any of their subsequent treatments. At 900 mg/m(2), 2 complete and 5 partial responses were observed in dogs with measurable tumors. The amount of gemcitabine excreted in urine decreased over time, and was undetectable after the first 24 hours. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The recommended dose of gemcitabine for future Phase 2 studies is weekly 900 mg/m(2). In chemotherapy-naïve dogs with advanced solid tumor this dose level merits further evaluation.