Search

A significant regulatory gap exists to facilitate global development of therapeutics for nononcology severely debilitating or life-threatening diseases or conditions (SDLTs). In a 2017 publication, a streamlined approach to the development of treatments for SDLTs was proposed to facilitate earlier and continued patient access to new, potentially beneficial therapeutics. 1 However, a major hindrance to broad adoption of this streamlined approach has been the lack of universally accepted, objective criteria to define SDLTs. This article serves to extend the 2017 publication by further addressing the challenge of defining SDLT scope in order to stimulate broader discussion and facilitate development of regional and ultimately international guidelines on the development of therapeutics for SDLTs. Using case examples, we describe key attributes of SDLTs and provide criteria for consideration of an SDLT scope definition., (© 2019 The Authors Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2019 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

There is an active debate in toxicology literature about the utility of animal testing vis-a-vis alternative in vitro paradigms. To provide a balanced perspective and add to this discourse it is important to review the current paradigms, explore pros and cons of alternatives, and provide a vision for the future. The fundamental goal of toxicity testing is to ensure safety in humans. In this article, IQ Consortium DruSafe, while submitting the view that nonclinical testing in animals is an important and critical component of the risk assessment paradigm in developing new drugs, also discusses its views on alternative approaches including a roadmap for what would be required to enhance the utilization of alternative approaches in the safety assessment process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The contribution of animal testing in drug development has been widely debated and challenged. An industry-wide nonclinical to clinical translational database was created to determine how safety assessments in animal models translate to First-In-Human clinical risk. The blinded database was composed of 182 molecules and contained animal toxicology data coupled with clinical observations from phase I human studies. Animal and clinical data were categorized by organ system and correlations determined. The 2 × 2 contingency table (true positive, false positive, true negative, false negative) was used for statistical analysis. Sensitivity was 48% with a 43% positive predictive value (PPV). The nonhuman primate had the strongest performance in predicting adverse effects, especially for gastrointestinal and nervous system categories. When the same target organ was identified in both the rodent and nonrodent, the PPV increased. Specificity was 84% with an 86% negative predictive value (NPV). The beagle dog had the strongest performance in predicting an absence of clinical adverse effects. If no target organ toxicity was observed in either test species, the NPV increased. While nonclinical studies can demonstrate great value in the PPV for certain species and organ categories, the NPV was the stronger predictive performance measure across test species and target organs indicating that an absence of toxicity in animal studies strongly predicts a similar outcome in the clinic. These results support the current regulatory paradigm of animal testing in supporting safe entry to clinical trials and provide context for emerging alternate models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]