Improving the Efficiency of Clinical Pharmacology Studies

Personality vulnerabilities and adverse event reporting in phase 1 clinical studies

BACKGROUND

Phase 1 clinical trials involve rigorous safety monitoring to identify any adverse effects of investigational treatments. There is growing evidence that healthy volunteers recruited in these studies may differ with respect to personality traits from the general population. This, in turn, may have a significant impact on the reporting of adverse events, particularly in trials investigating psychoactive treatments, including the psychedelic substances.

MAIN BODY

This analysis stems from our combined experience as investigators in phase 1 clinical trials and conveys an experiential understanding of the impact of psychological heterogeneity on study participation, reporting of adverse events and study outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Participant variability due to psychological characteristics is regularly overlooked in phase 1 clinical trials and may significantly impact on reporting of the adverse events. In our opinion, healthy volunteers who present for these studies should not only be defined by the absence of past or current medical and psychiatric illness but also characterised by their psychological attributes.

Pharmacogenomics - a minor rather than major force in clinical medicine

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) is touted as essential for the future of precision medicine. But the opportunity cost of PGx from the prescribers' perspective is rarely considered. The aim of this article is to critique PGx-guided prescribing using clinical pharmacology principles so that important cases for PGx testing are not missed by doctors responsible for therapeutic decision making.

AREAS COVERED

Three categories of PGx and their limitations are outlined - exposure PGx, response PGx, and immune-mediated safety PGx. Clinical pharmacology reasons are given for the narrow scope of PGx-guided prescribing apart from a few medical specialties. Clinical problems for doctors that may arise from PGx are then explained, including mismatch between patients' expectations of PGx testing and the benefits or answers it provides.

EXPERT OPINION

Contrary to popular opinion, PGx is unlikely to become the cornerstone of precision medicine. Sound clinical pharmacology reasons explain why PGx-guided prescribing is unnecessary for most drugs. Pharmacogenomics is important for niche areas of prescribing but has limited clinical utility more broadly. The opportunity cost of PGx-guided prescribing is currently too great for most doctors.