Cited by 7Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and ProtectionAnimal testing and alternativesDrug-Induced Adverse Reactions

Human biology-based drug safety evaluation: scientific rationale, current status and future challenges

Kenna, J. Gerry·2017·Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Animal toxicity studies used to assess the safety of new candidate pharmaceuticals prior to their progression into human clinical trials are unable to assess the risk of non-pharmacologically mediated idiosyncratic adverse drug reactions (ADRs), the most frequent of which are drug-induced liver injury and cardiotoxicity. Idiosyncratic ADRs occur only infrequently and in certain susceptible humans, but are caused by many hundreds of different drugs and may lead to serious illness. Areas covered: Idiosyncratic ADRs are initiated by drug-related chemical insults, which cause toxicity due to susceptibility factors that manifest only in certain patients. The chemical insults can be detected using in vitro assays. These enable useful discrimination between drugs that cause high versus low levels of idiosyncratic ADR concern. Especially promising assays, which have been described recently in peer-reviewed scientific literature, are highlighted. Expert opinion: Effective interpretation of in vitro toxicity data requires integration of endpoints from multiple assays, which each address different mechanisms, and must also take account of human systemic and tissue drug exposure in vivo. Widespread acceptance and use of such assays has been hampered by the lack of correlation between idiosyncratic human ADR risk and toxicities observed in vivo in animals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17425255.2017.1290082

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • In vitro pharmacological profiling methods have not been able to predict clinical failures due to idiosyncratic toxicity.

    “These methods have also not been able to predict clinical failures due to idiosyncratic toxicity and this may be due to the lack of in vitro-in vivo correlation5 while efficacy is as complex to predict6.”
  • The inability of in vitro pharmacological profiling to predict clinical failures due to idiosyncratic toxicity may be due to the lack of in vitro-in vivo correlation.

    “this may be due to the lack of in vitro-in vivo correlation5”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kenna, J. G.
Affiliations
Safer Medicines Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Kenna, J. Gerry
Venue
Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology
Published
2017-02-14
Volume
13
Issue
5
Pages
567-574
ISSN
  • 1742-5255 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-7607
OpenAlex
W2584499400
Cited by
7
References
68
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2
FWCI
0.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Drug-Induced Adverse Reactions
Keywords
idiosyncratic drug reactions, drug safety assessment, drug-induced liver injury, cardiotoxicity, in vitro toxicity testing, in vitro-in vivo correlation, animal toxicity studies
MeSH terms
Animals, Humans, Species Specificity, Drug Design, Toxicity Tests, Endpoint Determination, Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions, Cardiotoxicity

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