Cited by 109Animal testing and alternativesPharmaceutical studies and practicesCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias

Benchmarking safety pharmacology regulatory packages and best practice

Lindgren, Silvana, Bass, Alan S., Briscoe, Richard, Bruse, Kristy, Friedrichs, Gregory S., Kallman, Mary Jeanne, Markgraf, Carrie, Patmore, Leslie +1 more·2008·Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods

Abstract

Introduction The objectives of this survey were to obtain a global information update regarding current industry perspectives that describe Safety Pharmacology programs as they relate to the ICH S7A and S7B regulatory guidelines but also to obtain a broader perspective of other practises practices in the field currently used by companies. Preliminary findings were presented at the 7th Annual Meeting of the Safety Pharmacology Society (SPS) (Edinburgh, Scotland, Sept 19-21, 2007). Methods The survey was distributed by the SPS to 125 pharmaceutical companies. Survey topics included (a) an update on ICH S7A and S7B practices, (b) frontloading Safety Pharmacology studies prior to selection of candidate drugs, (c) abuse and dependence-liability studies and (d) an extended evaluation of industry practises practices as assessed by Contract Research Organizations (CROs). Results Respondents (>94%) include GLP core battery (CV, CNS and respiratory) studies in the drug package submitted to regulatory agencies, and approximately 40% also submit studies on gastrointestinal and renal function. Respondents to the ICH S7B aspects indicate approximately 98% include the hERG assay and QT interval (in vivo) data in submissions, 63% include APD in vitro data and another 23% APD in vivo and other cardiac channel data (26%). SP frontloading is performed by 78% of all responding companies. Respondents indicate that 39% of these non-GLP CV studies are conducted before lead optimization (LO) and 85% during LO and before candidate drug selection. The hERG, CNS selectivity binding screens and rodent behavioral studies are frontloaded by 100%, 90% and 74% of respondents. Responding CROs (26) were surveyed on the services offered including Irwin or Functional Observational Battery (FOB) tests (70%), respiratory studies (85%), in vivo telemeterized dogs (69%) and in vitro CV studies (50%). Only 38% of SP studies are combined with toxicology studies at the CROs. Discussion The survey results indicate that ICH S7A core battery studies are implemented by most of the responding companies with a clear trend of an enhanced submission of renal and GI studies. The impact of ICH S7B is clear since, all respondents assess cardiac repolarization using cellular hERG (I(Kr)) and whole animal (QT interval) assays as a component of their safety assessment. Responses indicate a diversity of approaches for conducting abuse liability studies, which primarily use the methods of self-administration and drug discrimination. While early SP frontloading of studies seems to vary, the methods used appear to be generic to some extent and include in vitro 'off-target' evaluations and in vivo tests to determine the potential for CNS and cardiovascular issues.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.vascn.2008.07.001

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Three separate surveys of the pharmaceutical industry revealed that canine was the most commonly used animal model for evaluating QT interval prolongation of novel compounds.

    “Three separate surveys of the pharmaceutical industry revealed that canine was the most commonly used animal model for evaluation and determination of QT interval prolongation of novel compounds (Friedrichs, Patmore, & Bass, 2005; Hammond, et al., 2001; Lindgren, et al., 2008).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 19 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lindgren, S., Bass, A. S., Briscoe, R., Bruse, K., Friedrichs, G. S., Kallman, M. J., Markgraf, C., Patmore, L., & Pugsley, M. K.
Affiliations
  • AstraZeneca (Sweden) (SE)
  • Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) (US)
  • Covance (United States) (US)
  • Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
  • Johnson & Johnson (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Lindgren, Silvana
Venue
Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-09
Volume
58
Issue
2
Pages
99-109
ISSN
1056-8719 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1993588163
Cited by
109
References
19
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 4
FWCI
14.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Keywords
safety pharmacology, ICH S7B, cardiac repolarization, QT interval, APD, frontloading, contract research organizations, lead optimization
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Drug Industry, Drug Evaluation, Preclinical, Surveys and Questionnaires, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Benchmarking, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review