Reevaluating safety pharmacology respiratory studies within the ICH S7A core battery: A multi-company evaluation of preclinical utility and clinical translation

G S Friedrichs,M M Abernathy,D Ackley,M Clark,J K DaSilva,C M Foley,A Greiter-Wilke,K A Henderson,J J Kremer,B H Morimoto,S Paglialunga,M K Pugsley,C P Regan,E I Rossman,J A Segretti,M Traebert,H M Vargas,T A Wisialowski
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105706
Abstract:Optimization of ICH safety guideline studies for inclusion into regulatory submissions is critical for resource conservation, animal use reduction, and efficient drug development. The ICH S7A guidance for Safety Pharmacology (SP) studies adopted in 2001 identified the core battery of studies to evaluate the acute safety of putative pharmaceutical molecules prior to First in Human (FIH) trials. To assess the utility of respiratory studies in predicting clinical AE's, seven pharmaceutical companies pooled preclinical and clinical respiratory findings. A large database of novel molecules included all relevant data from standard S7A respiratory (n = 459) and FIH studies (n = 309). The data were analyzed with respect to the progression of these molecules, clinical adverse event reporting of these same molecules, and achieved exposures. These S7A respiratory assay findings had no impact on compound progression, and only 12 of 309 drug candidates were 'positive' preclinically and reported a respiratory-related AE in clinical trials (i.e. cough, dyspnea, etc.), an overall incidence rate of 3.9%. Contingency tables/statistics support a lack of concordance of these preclinical assays. Overall, our extensive analysis clearly indicated that the preclinical respiratory assay fails to provide any prognostic value for detecting clinically relevant respiratory adverse events.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?