Translatability of preclinical to early clinical tolerable and pharmacologically active dose ranges for central nervous system active drugs

The primary purpose of this study was to assess the translatability of preclinical to early clinical tolerable and pharmacologically active dose ranges for central nervous system (CNS) active drugs. As a part of this, IBs were reviewed on reporting quality. Investigator's Brochures (IBs) of studies performed at the Centre for Human Drug Research (CHDR) reporting statistically significant results of CNS activity related to the drug's mechanism of action were included. The quality of IBs was assessed based on the presence of a rationale for the chosen animal model, completeness of pharmacokinetic (PK) results in reporting and internal validity information of the preclinical evidence. The IB-derisk tool was used to generate preclinical and early clinical data overviews data. For each compound, the overlap between pharmacologically active dose ranges and well-tolerated levels was calculated for three pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters: human equivalent dose (HED), maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the curve (AUC). Twenty-five IBs were included. In general, the quality of reporting in IBs was assessed as poor. About a third of studies did not explore the entire concentration-effect curve (pre)clinically. Single dose tolerability ranges were most accurately predicted by Cmax. Human equivalent dose and AUC were the best predictors of pharmacologically active ranges. Tolerable and pharmacologically active dose ranges in healthy volunteers can be reasonably well predicted from preclinical data with the IB-derisk tool. The translatability of preclinical studies can be improved by applying a higher reporting standard in IBs including comparable PK measurements across all preclinical and clinical studies.

Sex Proportionality in Pre-clinical and Clinical Trials: An Evaluation of 22 Marketing Authorization Application Dossiers Submitted to the European Medicines Agency

This study assessed to what extent women were included in all phases of drug development; whether the clinical studies in the marketing authorization application dossiers include information per sex; and explored whether there are differences between women and men in the drugs' efficacy and safety. Data were extracted from dossiers submitted to the European Medicines Agency. Twenty-two dossiers of drugs approved between 2011 and 2015 for the treatment of various diseases were included. Female animals were included in only 9% of the pharmacodynamics studies, but female and male animals were included in all toxicology studies. Although fewer women than men were included in the clinical studies used to evaluate pharmacokinetics (PK) (29 to 40% women), all dossiers contained sex-specific PK parameter estimations. In the phase III trials, inclusion of women was proportional to disease prevalence for depression, epilepsy, thrombosis, and diabetes [participation to prevalence ratio (PPR) range: 0.91–1.04], but women were considered underrepresented for schizophrenia, hepatitis C, hypercholesterolemia, HIV, and heart failure (PPR range: 0.49-0.74). All dossiers contained sex-specific subgroup analyses of efficacy and safety. There seemed to be higher efficacy for women in one dossier and a trend toward lower efficacy in another dossier. More women had adverse events in both treatment (73.0 vs. 70.6%, p < 0.001) and placebo groups (69.5 vs. 65.5%, p < 0.001). In conclusion, women were included throughout all phases of clinical drug research, and sex-specific information was available in the evaluated dossiers. The included number of women was, however, not always proportional to disease prevalence rates.

Comparison of drug efficacy in two animal models of type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Previous qualitative research has suggested there are only minor differences between the db/db mouse and the Zucker Diabetic Fatty (ZDF) rat, both animal models of type 2 diabetes. However, it is not known whether these models are also comparable regarding drug response in quantitative terms (effect size). To investigate the extent of these differences, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of approved drugs in these models. We searched on PubMed and Embase on July 3, 2019 for studies including either model, a monotherapy arm with an EMA/FDA approved drug for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, HbA1c assessment and a control group. Studies aimed at diabetes prevention or with surgical interventions were excluded. We calculated the Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) to compare effect sizes (HbA1c reduction) per drug and drug class across models. We included a risk of bias assessment for all included publications. A total of 121 publications met our inclusion criteria. For drugs with more than two comparisons, both models predicted the direction of the effect regarding HbA1c levels. There were no differences between the db/db mouse and ZDF rat, except for exenatide (P = 0.02) and GLP-1 agonists (P = 0.03) in which a larger effect size was calculated in the ZDF rat. Our results indicate the differences between the db/db mouse and ZDF rat are not relevant for preliminary efficacy testing. This methodology can be used to further differentiate between animal models used for the same indication, facilitating the selection of models more likely to predict human response.

Are some animal models more equal than others? A case study on the translational value of animal models of efficacy for Alzheimer's disease

Clinical trial failures (>99%) in Alzheimer's disease are in stark contrast to positive efficacy data in animals. We evaluated the correlation between animal and clinical efficacy outcomes (cognition) in Alzheimer's disease using data from registered drugs as well as interventions tested in phase II or III clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease. We identified 20 interventions, which were tested in 208 animal studies in 63 different animal models. Clinical outcome was correlated with animal results in 58% of cases. But, individual animal models showed divergent results across interventions, individual interventions showed divergent results across animal models, and animal model outcomes were determined with 16 different methods. This result is unsurprising due to poor external validity (what do we model) of the animal models. Although the animal models all share Alzheimer's disease symptoms, none represents the whole syndrome. Investigators did not motivate why one model was chosen over another, and did not consider the ways the disease phenomena were generated (spontaneous, (experimentally) induced or by genetic modification), or the species characteristics, which determine the outcomes. The explanation for the lack of correlation between animal and human outcomes can be manifold: the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease is not reflected in the animal model or the outcomes are not comparable. Our conclusion is that currently no animal models exist which are predictive for the efficacy of interventions for Alzheimer's disease.

Immunogenicity of mAbs in non-human primates during nonclinical safety assessment

The immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals used in clinical practice remains an unsolved challenge in drug development. Non-human primates (NHPs) are often the only relevant animal model for the development of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), but the immune response of NHPs to therapeutic mAbs is not considered to be predictive of the response in humans because of species differences. In this study, we accessed the drug registration files of all mAbs registered in the European Union to establish the relative immunogenicity of mAbs in NHPs and humans. The incidence of formation of antidrug-antibodies in NHPs and patients was comparable in only 59% of the cases. In addition, the type of antidrug-antibody response was different in NHP and humans in 59% of the cases. Humanization did not necessarily reduce immunogenicity in humans. Immunogenicity interfered with the safety assessment during non-clinical drug development when clearing or neutralizing antibodies were formed. While important to interpret the study results, immunogenicity reduced the quality of NHP data in safety assessment. These findings confirm that the ability to compare relative immunogenicity of mAbs in NHPs and humans is low. Furthermore, immunogenicity limits the value of informative NHP studies.

Measures of biosimilarity in monoclonal antibodies in oncology: the case of bevacizumab

Biosimilars have been available on the European market since 2006 and experience with their use is increasing. The next wave of biopharmaceuticals that are about to lose patent protection consists of more-complicated products, including many monoclonal antibodies. Guidance has been released on the particulars of a biosimilarity exercise involving these products. Considerable challenges exist to establish biosimilarity for anticancer products. An especially challenging product is bevacizumab (Avastin(®)). On the basis of data available for the innovator product (bevacizumab) we will discuss strengths and weaknesses of preclinical and clinical models and explore the application of novel endpoints to the biosimilar comparability exercise.