SEARCH · PubMed Health
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The historical aspects of drug development and evaluation are anecdotically related. Clinical trials have proven the effectiveness of animal tests in the vast majority of cases, and the effort has been well spent. Similar of more noteworthy success may be obtainable with model systems in the study of prostatic cancer.
Proteomics is a research field aiming to characterize molecular and cellular dynamics in protein expression and function on a global level. The introduction of proteomics has been greatly broadening our view and accelerating our path in various medical researches. The most significant advantage of proteomics is its ability to examine a whole proteome or sub-proteome in a single experiment so that the protein alterations corresponding to a pathological or biochemical condition at a given time can be considered in an integrated way. Proteomic technology has been extensively used to tackle a wide variety of medical subjects including biomarker discovery and drug development. By complement with other new technique advances in genomics and bioinformatics, proteomics has a great potential to make considerable contribution to biomarker identification and to revolutionize drug development process. This article provides a brief overview of the proteomic technologies and their application in biomarker discovery and drug development.
The Inter-Company Collaboration for AIDS Drug Development (ICC) represents a collaborative effort among member companies to facilitate the conduct of clinical trials on AIDS drugs. One of the goals of the ICC is to expedite the development of combination antiretroviral therapy through data and compound sharing. Recently, the ICC formed a consensus master protocol to evaluate rapidly the safety and efficacy of triple-drug combinations of antiretroviral therapy for treatment of HIV-infected patients. This concept builds upon historical work with combination chemotherapy that resulted in treatments to successfully control chronic immunosuppressive, infectious or malignant diseases, such as tuberculosis, leprosy, childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and Hodgkin's lymphoma. Because of limitations on potency and the continuing emergence of drug resistance seen with use of currently available antiretroviral agents in monotherapy and two-drug combination regimens, triple-combination regimens should represent a more promising approach to maximize antiviral activity, maintain long-term efficacy, and reduce the incidence of drug resistance. The ICC master protocol is a randomized, controlled, double-blind study with a treatment duration of 52 weeks. Patients eligible to enroll in this study must have documented HIV infection, with CD4 counts between 200 and 500 cells/mm3, and no history of antiretroviral therapy. The first four triple-drug combinations will be evaluated in two trials. These regimens have been selected based on encouraging data from laboratory and clinical studies. Each ICC trial will consist of three arms, with 75 patients per arm. Protocol ICC 001 will include AZT + zalcitabine (ddC) + saquinavir, AZT + ddC + nevirapine, and AZT + ddC as the control arm.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
The value of ethanomedical information in drug development is based on several factors: accuracy in recording or observing the medical use of the ethnomedical preparation, whether or not the ethnomedical use can be corroborated under scientific conditions in the laboratory, the formal or informal experience of the practitioner who provides the information, the role of the placebo effect and perhaps many others. Published ethnomedical information has many strengths and weaknesses relative to the ability to establish a corresponding biological effect in the laboratory. Many of the publications contain insufficient detail for the laboratory scientist. The ability to correlate ethnomedical reports with corresponding scientific studies could lead to improved selection of plants for further study in the areas of arthritis, cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, hypertension, malaria, pain and fungal and viral infections. These analyses have been accomplished by computer analysis utilizing the NAPRALERT database. This combination of analysing ethnomedical information and published scientific studies on plant extracts (ethnopharmacology) may reduce the number of plants that need to be screened for drug discovery attempts, resulting in a corresponding greater success rate than by random selection and mass bioscreening.
Routine immune function testing in preclinical drug development was established as a regulatory requirement in June of 2000 under the Committee of Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) Note for Guidance on Repeated Dose Toxicity (CPMP/SWP/1042/99). The purpose of the more stringent approach to immunotoxicology testing was to better identify unintended immunosuppression; however, the requirement was met with much discussion and debate. At the center of the discussion was an attempt to reconcile opposing regulatory directives from agencies outside of Europe that adhere to a more selective, weight-of-evidence approach to functional evaluations. Uncertainty over the predictive value of the recommended immune function tests relative to conventional toxicology parameters prompted an investigation by the International Committee on Harmonization (ICH). The results of a preliminary, industry-wide survey indicated that only a low percentage of pharmaceuticals adversely affect immune function without alterations to standard toxicology parameters. Expected ICH guidelines will ultimately determine to what extent and for what purpose immune function tests will be conducted. In the meantime, optimization of the recommended immune function tests is ongoing. The T-cell dependent antibody response (TDAR) by either conventional Sheep Red Blood Cell (SRBC) plaque assay or by the modified ELISA method using either SRBC or keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH) as antigen is being extensively evaluated to determine best practices and procedures for preclinical immunotoxicity evaluations. This review addresses some aspects of the debate concerning the appropriateness of immune function tests for hazard identification, along with recommendations for optimizing TDAR methodology to ensure adequate sensitivity and predictability in risk assessments for immunotoxicity.
In the NCI, Chemoprevention Branch drug development program, potential chemopreventive agents are evaluated for efficacy against chemical carcinogen-induced tumors in animal models. This paper summarizes the results of 144 agents in 352 tests using various animal efficacy models. Of these results, 146 were positive, representing 85 different agents. The target organs selected for the animals model are representative of high-incidence human cancers. The assays include inhibition of tumors induced by MNU in hamster trachea, DEN in hamster lung, AOM in rat colon (including inhibition of AOM-induced aberrant crypts), MAM in mouse colon, DMBA and MNU in rat mammary glands, DMBA promoted by TPA in mouse skin, and OH-BBN in mouse bladder. The agents tested may be classified into various pharmacological and chemical structural categories that are relevant to their chemopreventive potential. These categories include antiestrogens, antiinflammatories (e.g., NSAIDs), antioxidants, arachidonic acid metabolism inhibitors, GST and GSH enhancers, ODC inhibitors, protein kinase C inhibitors, retinoids and carotenoids, organosulfur compounds, calcium compounds, vitamin D3 and analogs, and phenolic compounds (e.g., flavonoids). The various categories of compounds have different spectra of efficacy in animal models. In hamster lung, GSH-enhancing agents and antioxidants appear to have high potential for inhibiting carcinogenesis. In the colon, NSAIDs and other antiinflammatory agents appear particularly promising. Likewise, NSAIDs are very active in mouse bladder. In rat mammary glands, retinoids and antiestrogens (as would be expected) are efficacious. Several of the chemicals evaluated also appear to be promising chemopreventive agents based on their activity in several of the animal models. Particularly, the ODC inhibitor DFMO was active in the colon, mammary glands, and bladder models, while the dithiolthione, oltipraz, was efficacious in all the models listed above (i.e., lung, colon, mammary glands, skin, and bladder).
Well-designed clinical trials maximize the information that can be obtained regarding the clinical pharmacology of a drug and, in turn, can streamline and enhance the drug development process. Until recently, little emphasis has been placed on integrating the role of variability in individual patterns of drug-taking into the drug development process. With the use of electronic monitoring, the temporal relationship between an individual's pattern of dosing and the prescribed regimen may be examined, and individual drug exposure may be estimated based on the actual history of dosing. As a result, accurate estimation of exposure-response relationships (or surrogate markers of response) can be obtained. Considerations in the design of clinical trials must therefore be expanded to include appropriate methods to measure compliance, sufficient frequency of monitoring to allow the time course of response to be mapped, and the use of statistically valid methods of data analysis.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This case study describes the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modelling undertaken during the development programme for UK-279,276 (neutrophil inhibitory factor), focusing on the transition from early empirical-based models to a final mechanistic-based model. UK-279,276 binds to the CD11b/CD18 (MAC-1) on neutrophils and was under development for the treatment of ischaemic stroke. METHODS: The aims, data, models, results and value-to-drug development process across four stages of model development are described: (i) the validation of the pharmacokinetic assay; (ii) the development and application of an empirical patient pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model; (iii) the development of a mechanistic-based model to bridge between patients and healthy volunteers; and (iv) propagation of the stage III model to a large efficacy study. The analyses utilised available concentration measurements (stages I-IV), CD11b receptor occupancy data (stages I-III) and neutrophil count data (stages III-IV) from three healthy volunteers (study 1, n=51; study 2, n=31; study 4, n=15) and two patient studies (study 3, n=169; study 5, n=992). In studies 1-4, subjects received placebo or between three and six doses of UK-279,276 covering a range of 0.006 and 1.5 mg/kg as a single 15-minute intravenous infusion. In study 5, subjects received placebo or one of 15 possible doses of UK-279,276 (10--20mg) assigned through adaptive design and administered as a single 15-minute intravenous infusion. All model building was conducted using NONMEM version VI (beta). The empirical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model developed during stage I was used to demonstrate that the pharmacokinetic assay was measuring biologically active drug. Simulations from the stage II model, developed from study 3, were used in the design of study 5. The model supported the switch to a fixed-dose regimen and the selection of the maximum dose and dosage increments. The common mechanistic-based model developed during stage III was used to support the 'comparability strategy' for UK-279,276 and provided insight into the underlying clearance mechanisms. At stage 4, the prior functionality available with NONMEM was used to successfully propagate the model from stage III in order to analyse the pharmacokinetic data from study 5. The analysis indicated that the exposure in study 5 was consistent with prior data. The role of empirical-based models in providing the learning for future mechanistic model development was highlighted. Similarly, the qualitative and quantitative aspects to knowledge propagation and the ultimate benefits from the development of the mechanistic-based model were demonstrated. While the empirical-based models were used to guide some early drug development decisions for UK-279,276, the development of the mechanistic-based model was valuable in linking the complex pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of UK-279,276 across the phases of drug development.
Alkylating agents have been used to treat cancer since the 1940s. Quinone-containing alkylating agents represent a class of drugs called "bioreductive alkylating agents." These drugs require reduction of the quinone moiety for activation of their alkylating substituents. Despite active research in this area, mitomycin C is the only bioreductive alkylating agent approved for general use. The "enzyme-directed" approach to bioreductive drug development involves identification of reductases which are overexpressed in tumors when compared to uninvolved tissues. Bioreductive drugs which are substrates for these reductases should be selectively toxic to tumors with high reductase levels. NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase (NQO1, DT-diaphorase, EC 1.6.99.2) is a two-electron reductase found primarily in the cytosol. NQO1 has received considerable attention because of the high levels of this enzyme in tumors particularly in tumors of the lung, colon and breast. In this review, the current state of research on quinone-containing alkylating agents is discussed with the focus on NQO1-directed bioreductive drug development. Recent structure-activity studies on indolequinones, benzoquinones and other novel quinones are reviewed, and the status of drugs which have been studied in clinical trials is discussed. Finally, the limitations and possible future directions in this research area are presented.
Since the pioneering work of Haggard and Teorell in the first half of the 20th century, and of Bischoff and Dedrick in the late 1960s, physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling has gone through cycles of general acceptance, and of healthy skepticism. Recently, however, the trend in the pharmaceuticals industry has been away from PBPK models. This is understandable when one considers the time and effort necessary to develop, test, and implement a typical PBPK model, and the fact that in the present-day environment for drug development, efficacy and safety must be demonstrated and drugs brought to market more rapidly. Although there are many modeling tools available to the pharmacokineticist today, many of which are preferable to PBPK modeling in most circumstances, there are several situations in which PBPK modeling provides distinct benefits that outweigh the drawbacks of increased time and effort for implementation. In this Commentary, we draw on our experience with this modeling technique in an industry setting to provide guidelines on when PBPK modeling techniques could be applied in an industrial setting to satisfy the needs of regulatory customers. We hope these guidelines will assist researchers in deciding when to apply PBPK modeling techniques. It is our contention that PBPK modeling should be viewed as one of many modeling tools for drug development.
The development of new anticancer agents is becoming an increasingly complex task which is often beyond the capabilities of a single institution or company. To ensure fast, efficient, high-quality drug development, good coordination and collaboration are essential prerequisites. In this paper, the Dutch national drug development program is described as an example and placed in the perspective of Europe-wide efforts. Since knowledge of new molecular targets and biological approaches by which the malignant growth of cells can be stopped or prevented is increasing, new guidelines for the development of noncytotoxic drugs are required. To avoid duplication and to make the results obtained using these new agents comparable so that patients will gain the maximum benefit of efforts in this field, further extension of international coordination will be of utmost importance in the coming years.
Well-designed and carefully conducted pediatric phase 1 trials are critical to the process of evaluating new agents for potential benefit in children with cancer, and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has for a number of years sponsored pediatric phase I trials. The development of new agents for children with cancer differs in important ways from drug development for adults with cancer, primarily necessitated by the smaller number of children eligible for phase I trials in comparison to adults. Pediatric drug development is characterized by a greater need to prioritize new agents for evaluation, since many more agents can be evaluated in adults than can be evaluated in children. Pediatric phase I trials are also commonly conducted as multi-institutional collaborations, since most single institutions do not have enough eligible patients to complete phase I trials within a reasonable time. In addition, pediatric phase I trials begin at doses close to the adult maximum tolerated dose, thereby minimizing the number of patients required to complete pediatric phase I trials. While pediatric phase I trials have traditionally evaluated conventional cytotoxic agents, new classes of agents with distinctive mechanisms of action are entering clinical evaluation. These agents target specific cellular proteins (e.g., protein tyrosine kinases, protein kinase C isoforms, enzymes involved in controlling progression through the cell cycle). Determining whether these agents with specificity for critical cellular proteins will be effective anti-cancer agents will be an important objective of pediatric clinical investigations in the coming years.
There is often a considerable lapse of time between the definition of what causes a disease in the laboratory and the development of successful therapy. However, the history of medicine teaches us that the need to understand the scientific basis of disease before the discovery of new treatments is both essential and inevitable. During the middle of the 19th century, the work of the great German pathologist, Rudolf Virchow, defined disease as having an anatomic or histologic basis. In the clinic, this scientific perspective would lead to increasingly effective and, often, increasingly aggressive surgical approaches to disease. Later in the 19th century, Koch's discovery of the tubercle bacillus (a discovery Virchow disbelieved and publication of which he thwarted, since he hypothesized that cancer, not microbes, caused consumption!), would define a microbiological basis for disease. With bacteria defined as a major cause of human suffering, the stage was set for the development of the discovery of effective antibiotics. In the early 20th century, the pioneering work of Banting, Best and others would show that disease can also have an endocrine or metabolic basis. This new body of scientific knowledge would lead not only to the specific discovery of insulin as an effective treatment for diabetes but also to a more general understanding of the role of hormones, vitamins and co-factors in human health and disease. Basic medical research and its successful translation into effective treatments has fundamentally altered the cause of human death. In the developed world, where access to the benefit of this work is available, infectious disease is not the problem it was in the days of Pasteur, Metchnikoff and Ehrlich. As we approach the millennium, science is now teaching us that diseases, particularly cancer, can have a molecular or genetic basis. Can successful application of this new knowledge be far behind? We are already seeing the application of this new knowledge in cancer drug screening and cancer drug development. At the NCI, for example, the old in vivo mouse screen using mouse lymphomas has been shelved; it discovered compounds with some activity in lymphomas, but not the common solid tumors of adulthood. It has been replaced with an initial in vitro screen of some sixty cell lines, representing the common solid tumors-ovary, G.I., lung, breast, CNS, melanoma and others. The idea was to not only discover new drugs with specific anti-tumor activity but also to use the small volumes required for in vitro screening as a medium to screen for new natural product compounds, one of the richest sources of effective chemotherapy. The cell line project had an unexpected dividend. The pattern of sensitivity in the panel predicted the mechanism of action of unknown compounds. An antifolate suppressed cell growth of the different lines like other antifolates, anti-tubulin compounds suppressed like other anti-tubulins, and so on. It now became possible, at a very early stage of cancer drug screening, to select for drugs with unknown-and potentially novel-mechanisms of action. The idea was taken to the next logical step, and that was to characterize the entire panel for important molecular properties of human malignancy: mutations in the tumor suppressor gene p53, expression of important oncogenes like ras or myc, the gp170 gene which confers multiple drug resistance, protein-specific kinases, and others. It now became possible to use the cell line panel as a tool to detect new drugs which targeted a specific genetic property of the tumor cell. Researchers can now ask whether a given drug is likely to inhibit multiple drug resistance or kill cells which over-express specific oncogenes at the earliest phase of drug discovery. In this issue of The Oncologist, Tom Connors celebrates the fiftieth anniversary of cancer chemotherapy. His focus is on the importance of international collaboration in clinical trials and the negative impact of unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation. As a student of Tom's in the 1970s in London, working on hepatoma-specific alkylating agents at Charing Cross Hospital in collaboration with his lab on the other side of town, I can attest to the fact that the regulatory hurdles to cancer drug development just twenty years later have added immeasurably to the effort and cost of cancer drug development. However, I look with optimism to the future of cancer diagnosis, prevention and treatment. It is a future where what we are learning now about the molecular and genetic basis of cancer will find their clinical outlet just as surely as the anatomic, microbial, metabolic and endocrine basis for disease has in the past. This new knowledge will provide new techniques in molecular diagnosis, which will allow us to predict which in situ cancers are destined for malignant behavior, and which can be safely watched without the need for intervention. Individual patient risk for particular cancers will be accurately predictable, so that patients can alter lifestyle habits or begin other prevention strategies. Oncogenes and growth suppressor genes give us new targets to inhibit or replace. Tumor-specific kinases will meet their inhibitors. The oncologist will play a leading role in understanding, applying and interpreting this new information in the clinic-an exciting and challenging future!
Radioimaging techniques have found a place in clinical diagnosis, but there has been a hesitancy to use this approach in drug development. This reluctance may have been due to the availability of ligands, the time and cost of synthesis and the number of centres and, although these perceived problems have been largely overcome, for many the benefits are not evident. The use in drug development is potentially large since tomography can measure drug levels, specific binding, blood flow and activity within the human body. In drug discovery, combinational chemistry and high throughput screening, the synthesis of candidate drugs with specific binding properties are dependent on understanding the disease and using appropriate in vitro or animal models. Using small animal tomographs, these can be validated using radioimaging. Pharmacokinetics and metabolic problems, such as the distribution of inhaled gases, drug targeting into tumours of the brain or specific gastrointestinal absorption sites can be investigated within the human rather than relying on animals. The high specific activity allows low doses to be administered to man with limited safety studies, permitting kinetic and metabolic studies to be undertaken early in development. Safety studies and ensuing toxicological endpoints in animals rely on histopathology for gross degenerative in physiological function. Where concern exists, radioimaging could detect early in situ changes in humans, for example hepatic toxicity, before they become hazardous. In clinical studies, the action of drugs can be measured directly at the effector site prior to undertaking longer studies, which is important for many diseases, but particularly for those such as Alzheimer's disease, where improvements may be slow or subtle.
A nomogram is proposed to select the best candidate in drug development studies with quinolones and is intended to substitute other possible models. The nomogram is referred to as an activity-bioavailability balance (ABB) because it includes the following two criteria: ABB = [(1/gm MIC drug candidate)/ (1/gm MIC ciprofloxacin)].[(F(calc) drug candidate)/( F(calc) ciproflaxacin)]. The in vitro activity of a group of 4'N-alkyl-ciprofloxacin derivatives was determined together with that of ciprofloxacin, initially against some reference strains and subsequently against 159 clinical isolates of eight selected species. The inverse of the geometric mean of the lowest concentration of drug at which the original inoculum was reduced to no more than two colonies (1/gm MIC), as an antimicrobial activity parameter, and the absolute oral bioavailability index (F(calc)), as predicted from in situ intestinal absorption rate constants, were used for calculation of the ABB values, which ranged from 0.1 to 17 for the species and compounds tested. Ciprofloxacin was the best candidate only against Escherichia coli, whereas 4'N-methyl- and/or 4'N-ethyl-ciprofloxacin showed better or much better ABB values than the model drug, and can be selected as potential drug candidates against the remaining clinical strains. The procedure described could be a useful technique for further drug development studies.
The major progress made in the understanding of the genetic basis of inter-individual variation in drug response, alongside the rapid advances in technology, provides major new opportunities to ensure the safe introduction of a new chemical entity into clinical practice. In essence, the aim is to get the right drug into the right patient using knowledge of factors that influence both benefit and risk. The stage of the drug development process at which genetic analysis needs to be undertaken is dependent on the frequency of the event, and the availability of clinical samples. Thus, common adverse events, or assessment of efficacy, will be feasible for testing in phases I-III. However, when a rare event is being studied, for example idiosyncratic toxicity, prospective analysis becomes impossible. Thus, retrospective studies using available drugs is important as it may provide paradigms for future drug development. Additionally, prospective collection of samples will be important so that rare adverse events identified during phase IV can then be analysed using toxicogenetic approaches. Ultimately, information obtained from toxicogenetics must be included in the Specific Product Characteristics (SPC) and thus formally translated into clinical practice in order to contraindicate the drug in specific patients with a genetically determined susceptibility to drug toxicity.
Human tumour xenografts implanted subcutaneously (s.c.) into immunosuppressed mice have played a significant role in preclinical anticancer drug development for the past 25 years. Their use as a predictive indicator of probable clinical activity has been validated for cytotoxics. A retrospective analysis for 39 compounds where both extensive xenograft testing and Phase II clinical data were available, performed by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), has shown that 15/33 agents (45%) with activity in more than one-third of xenografts showed clinical activity (P=0.04). However, with the exception of non-small cell lung cancer, activity within a particular histological type of the xenograft generally did not predict for clinical activity in the same tumour. Today, the question (largely unanswered) is how useful is the xenograft model (particularly the traditional s.c. model) in contemporary cancer drug discovery? There are many variables when conducting xenograft experiments which impact on outcome; viz, site of implantation, growth properties of the xenograft and size when treatment is initiated, agent formulation, scheduling, route of administration and dose and the selected endpoint for assessing activity. The xenograft model remains of value in current preclinical cancer drug development, especially when such studies give due consideration to the above variables and are based on sound mechanistic (e.g. status of the selected target in the chosen model) and pharmacological (e.g. use of formulated agent) principles. Dependent upon the drug target, a slowing of xenograft tumour growth (cytostatic effect) rather than tumour shrinkage might be the major observed effect. Human tumour xenografts are also particularly useful in determining pharmacodynamic markers of response for subsequent clinical application. Nevertheless, it needs to be kept in mind that the use of xenografts is relatively time-consuming and expensive, raises animal ethical issues and there are instances where the model is inappropriate as a likely predictor of clinical outcome (e.g. inhibitors of the metastatic process and anti-angiogenic strategies as the vasculature is of murine origin).
Pharmacogenomics, which is a field that encompasses the study of genetic polymorphisms that underlie individual differences in drug response, is rapidly advancing. The potential for the widespread use of pharmacogenomics in the drug development process merits an examination of its fundamental impact on clinical-trial design and practice. This article provides a critical analysis of some of the issues that pertain to pharmacogenomics in the drug development process. In particular, four areas will be discussed: clinical-trial design; subject stratification; some new social risks; and economic concerns. Recommendations are offered for addressing the issues that are discussed and anticipating the regulatory needs for pharmacogenomics-based trials.