Translatability of the S7A core battery respiratory safety pharmacology studies: Preclinical respiratory and related clinical adverse events
Abstract
Introduction Before entering into first-in-human studies, most new chemical entities must undergo a series of preclinical evaluations. ICH S7A safety pharmacology (SP) guidelines, adopted in 2001, include respiratory assessments as part of the core battery. Despite these safety measures being in place for nearly two decades, studies examining the relationship between preclinical findings captured in respiratory SP studies and clinical respiratory adverse events (AEs) are sparse. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the predictive value of preclinical respiratory observations to identify clinical respiratory AEs for both investigational products in early drug development and approved drugs. Method Three independent databases were interrogated to evaluate the concordance between preclinical and clinical respiratory AEs. Two databases stem from early clinical phase studies, evaluating 52 and 128 investigational products respectively. The third database was derived from a large repository of nearly 4000 FDA and EMA drug approval documents. Results Analysis of early phase clinical studies revealed little to no predictive risk for clinical respiratory adverse events when respiratory findings were observed in preclinical studies, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 27% and 36% for each dataset respectively. In addition, the likelihood ratio, which reflects the shift in predictability of human risk, was 1.02 and 0.76 respectively, indicating no change in liability. E…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Paglialunga et al. examined translatability of respiratory safety pharmacology studies from animal models to humans and found that PPV and PLR were so low that animal tests provided little value in predicting human toxicity.
“Paglialunga et al. (56) examined translatability of respiratory safety pharmacology studies from animal models to humans and found that PPV and PLR were so low that animal tests provided little value in predicting human toxicity.”
From Limitations of Animal Studies for Predicting Toxicity in Clinical Trials (2019) · cites this paper as [56]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 17 · Cited by 26
- Authors
- Paglialunga, S., Morimoto, B. H., Clark, M., & Friedrichs, G. S.
- Affiliations
- Celerion (United States) (US)
- Alkahest, Inc. (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Friedrichs, Gregory S.
- Venue
- Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-09
- Volume
- 99
- Pages
- 106596
- ISSN
- 1056-8719 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2948550206
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 2.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- The Novartis Repository (Novartis) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotoxicology and immune responses
- Keywords
- respiratory adverse events, positive predictive value, likelihood ratios, respiratory depression, respiratory failure, pulmonary disorders, drug safety assessment, early drug development
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