Biomedical subjects

Stanley Roberts

Publications and source records attributed to Stanley Roberts.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Strategy for genotoxicity testing--metabolic considerations.

The report from the 2002 International Workshop on Genotoxicity Tests (IWGT) Strategy Expert Group emphasized metabolic considerations as an important area to address in developing a common strategy for genotoxicity testing. A working group convened at the 2005 4th IWGT to discuss this area further and propose practical strategy recommendations. To propose a strategy, the working group reviewed: (1) the current status and deficiencies, including examples of carcinogens "missed" in genotoxicity testing, established shortcomings of the standard in vitro induced S9 activation system and drug metabolite case examples; (2) the current status of possible remedies, including alternative S9 sources, other external metabolism systems or genetically engineered test systems; (3) any existing positions or guidance. The working group established consensus principles to guide strategy development. Thus, a human metabolite of interest should be represented in genotoxicity and carcinogenicity testing, including evaluation of alternative genotoxicity in vitro metabolic activation or test systems, and the selection of a carcinogenicity test species showing appropriate biotransformation. Appropriate action triggers need to be defined based on the extent of human exposure, considering any structural knowledge of the metabolite, and when genotoxicity is observed upon in vitro testing in the presence of metabolic activation. These triggers also need to be considered in defining the timing of human pharmaceutical ADME assessments. The working group proposed two strategies to consider; a more proactive approach, which emphasizes early metabolism predictions to drive appropriate hazard assessment; and a retroactive approach to manage safety risks of a unique or "major" metabolite once identified and quantitated from human clinical ADME studies. In both strategies, the assessment of the genotoxic potential of a metabolite could include the use of an alternative or optimized in vitro metabolic activation system, or direct testing of an isolated or synthesized metabolite. The working group also identified specific areas where more data or experiences need to be gained to reach consensus. These included defining a discrete exposure action trigger for safety assessment and when direct testing of a metabolite of interest is warranted versus the use of an alternative in vitro activation system, a universal recommendation for the timing of human ADME studies for drug candidates and the positioning of metabolite structural knowledge (through in silico systems, literature, expert analysis) in supporting metabolite safety qualification. Lastly, the working group outlined future considerations for refining the initially proposed strategies. These included the need for further evaluation of the current in vitro genotoxicity testing protocols that can potentially perturb or reduce the level of metabolic activity (potential alterations in metabolism associated with both the use of some solvents to solubilize test chemicals and testing to the guidance limit dose), and proposing broader evaluations of alternative metabolic activation sources or engineered test systems to further challenge the suitability of (or replace) the current induced liver S9 activation source.

2-Acetylaminofluorene↗

PubMed2005

Lack of cataleptogenic potentiation with non-imidazole H3 receptor antagonists reveals potential drug-drug interactions between imidazole-based H3 receptor antagonists and antipsychotic drugs.

Since H3 receptor (H3R) antagonists/inverse agonists can improve cognitive function in animal models, they may have the potential to be used as add-on therapy in the treatment of schizophrenia, a disease with significant cognitive deficits. However, a recent study showed potentiation of haloperidol-induced catalepsy by ciproxifan, an imidazole-containing H3R antagonist/inverse agonist, suggesting there is a potential risk of exacerbating extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) if H3R antagonists were used as adjunctive treatment [Pillot, C., Ortiz, J., Heron, A., Ridray, S., Schwartz, J.C. and Arrang, J.M., Ciproxifan, a histamine H3-receptor antagonist/inverse agonist, potentiates neurochemical and behavioral effects of haloperidol in the rat, J Neurosci, 22 (2002) 7272-80]. In order to clarify the basis of this finding, we replicated this result and extended the work with another imidazole and two non-imidazole H3R antagonists. The results indicate that ciproxifan significantly augmented the effects of haloperidol and risperidone on catalepsy. Another imidazole H3R antagonist, thioperamide, also potentiated the effect of risperidone on catalepsy. In contrast, no catalepsy-enhancing effects were observed when selective non-imidazole H3R antagonists, ABT-239 and A-431404, were coadministered with haloperidol and/or risperidone. As ciproxifan and thioperamide are inhibitors of cytochrome P450 enzymes, responsible for metabolizing risperidone and haloperidol, the possibility that the augmentation of antipsychotics by imidazoles resulted from drug-drug interactions was tested. A drug metabolism study revealed that an imidazole, but not a non-imidazole, potently inhibited the metabolism of haloperidol and risperidone. Furthermore, ketoconazole, an imidazole-based CYP 3A4 inhibitor, significantly augmented risperidone-induced catalepsy. Together, these data suggest the potentiation of antipsychotic-induced catalepsy may result from pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions and support the potential utility of non-imidazole H3R antagonists in treatment of cognitive impairment in schizophrenia without increased risk of increased EPS in patients.

Animals↗

PubMed2003

The conduct of in vitro and in vivo drug-drug interaction studies: a Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) perspective.

Current regulatory guidances do not address specific study designs for in vitro and in vivo drug-drug interaction studies. There is a common desire by regulatory authorities and by industry sponsors to harmonize approaches, to allow for a better assessment of the significance of findings across different studies and drugs. There is also a growing consensus for the standardization of cytochrome P450 (P450) probe substrates, inhibitors and inducers and for the development of classification systems to improve the communication of risk to health care providers and to patients. While existing guidances cover mainly P450-mediated drug interactions, the importance of other mechanisms, such as transporters, has been recognized more recently, and should also be addressed. This article was prepared by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Drug Metabolism and Clinical Pharmacology Technical Working Groups and represents the current industry position. The intent is to define a minimal best practice for in vitro and in vivo pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction studies targeted to development (not discovery support) and to define a data package that can be expected by regulatory agencies in compound registration dossiers.

Cytochrome P-450 Enzyme System↗

PubMed2003

The conduct of in vitro and in vivo drug-drug interaction studies: a PhRMA perspective.

Current regulatory guidances do not address specific study designs for in vitro and in vivo drug-drug interaction studies. There is a common desire by regulatory authorities and by industry sponsors to harmonize approaches to allow for a better assessment of the significance of findings across different studies and drugs. There is also a growing consensus for the standardization of cytochrome P450 (CYP) probe substrates, inhibitors, and inducers and for the development of classification systems to improve the communication of risk to health care providers and patients. While existing guidances cover mainly CYP-mediated drug interactions, the importance of other mechanisms, such as transporters, has been recognized more recently and should also be addressed. This paper was prepared by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Drug Metabolism and Clinical Pharmacology Technical Working Groups and represents the current industry position. The intent is to define a minimal best practice for in vitro and in vivo pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction studies targeted to development (not discovery support) and to define a data package that can be expected by regulatory agencies in compound registration dossiers.

Cells, Cultured↗