Phase 0, Including Microdosing Approaches: Applying the Three Rs and Increasing the Efficiency of Human Drug Development

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (6) ◽  
pp. 335-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tal Burt ◽  
Le Thuy Vuong ◽  
Elizabeth Baker ◽  
Graeme C. Young ◽  
A. Daniel McCartt ◽  
...  

Phase 0 approaches, including microdosing, involve the use of sub-therapeutic exposures to the tested drugs, thus enabling safer, more-relevant, quicker and cheaper first-in-human (FIH) testing. These approaches also have considerable potential to limit the use of animals in human drug development. Recent years have witnessed progress in applications, methodology, operations, and drug development culture. Advances in applications saw an expansion in therapeutic areas, developmental scenarios and scientific objectives, in, for example, protein drug development and paediatric drug development. In the operational area, the increased sensitivity of Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), expansion of the utility of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) imaging, and the introduction of Cavity Ring-Down Spectroscopy (CRDS), have led to the increased accessibility and utility of Phase 0 approaches, while reducing costs and exposure to radioactivity. PET has extended the application of microdosing, from its use as a predominant tool to record pharmacokinetics, to a method for recording target expression and target engagement, as well as cellular and tissue responses. Advances in methodology include adaptive Phase 0/Phase 1 designs, cassette and cocktail microdosing, and Intra-Target Microdosing (ITM), as well as novel modelling opportunities and simulations. Importantly, these methodologies increase the predictive power of extrapolation from microdose to therapeutic level exposures. However, possibly the most challenging domain in which progress has been made, is the culture of drug development. One of the main potential values of Phase 0 approaches is the opportunity to terminate development early, thus not only applying the principle of ‘kill-early-kill-cheap’ to enhance the efficiency of drug development, but also obviating the need for the full package of animal testing required for therapeutic level Phase 1 studies. Finally, we list developmental scenarios that utilised Phase 0 approaches in novel drug development.

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nirmala Bhogal ◽  
Robert Combes

Clinical studies in human volunteers are an essential part of drug development. These studies are designed to account for possible differences between the effects of pharmaceutical products in pre-clinical studies and in humans. However, the tragic outcome of the recent Phase 1 clinical trial on TGN1412 casts considerable doubt over the relevance of this traditional drug development paradigm to the testing of therapeutic agents for human use. The role of alternatives to animal testing is considered, and a series of recommendations are made, which could ensure that clinical trials are well informed and based on the most relevant scientific information.


2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 214-219
Author(s):  
Robyn J. Barst

Drug development is the entire process of introducing a new drug to the market. It involves drug discovery, screening, preclinical testing, an Investigational New Drug (IND) application in the US or a Clinical Trial Application (CTA) in the EU, phase 1–3 clinical trials, a New Drug Application (NDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review and approval, and postapproval studies required for continuing safety evaluation. Preclinical testing assesses safety and biologic activity, phase 1 determines safety and dosage, phase 2 evaluates efficacy and side effects, and phase 3 confirms efficacy and monitors adverse effects in a larger number of patients. Postapproval studies provide additional postmarketing data. On average, it takes 15 years from preclinical studies to regulatory approval by the FDA: about 3.5–6.5 years for preclinical, 1–1.5 years for phase 1, 2 years for phase 2, 3–3.5 years for phase 3, and 1.5–2.5 years for filing the NDA and completing the FDA review process. Of approximately 5000 compounds evaluated in preclinical studies, about 5 compounds enter clinical trials, and 1 compound is approved (Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, 2011). Most drug development programs include approximately 35–40 phase 1 studies, 15 phase 2 studies, and 3–5 pivotal trials with more than 5000 patients enrolled. Thus, to produce safe and effective drugs in a regulated environment is a highly complex process. Against this backdrop, what is the best way to develop drugs for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), an orphan disease often rapidly fatal within several years of diagnosis and in which spontaneous regression does not occur?


2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-151
Author(s):  
Ryogo Minamimoto ◽  
Chumpol Theeraladanon ◽  
Akiko Suzuki ◽  
Tomio Inoue

Author(s):  
Heather L. Rogers ◽  
Pedro Pita Barros ◽  
Jan De Maeseneer ◽  
Lasse Lehtonen ◽  
Christos Lionis ◽  
...  

The resilience of health systems has received considerable attention as of late, yet little is known about what a resilience test might look like. We develop a resilience test concept and methodology. We describe key components of a toolkit and a 5-phased approach to implementation of resilience testing that can be adapted to individual health systems. We develop a methodology for a test that is balanced in terms of standardization and system-specific characteristics/needs. We specify how to work with diverse stakeholders from the health ecosystem via participatory processes to assess and identify recommendations for health system strengthening. The proposed resilience test toolkit consists of “what if” adverse scenarios, a menu of health system performance elements and indicators based on an input-output-outcomes framework, a discussion guide for each adverse scenario, and a traffic light scorecard template. The five phases of implementation include Phase 0, a preparatory phase to adapt the toolkit materials; Phase 1: facilitated discussion groups with stakeholders regarding the adverse scenarios; Phase 2: supplemental data collection of relevant quantitative indicators; Phase 3: summarization of results; Phase 4: action planning and health system transformation. The toolkit and 5-phased approach can support countries to test resilience of health systems, and provides a concrete roadmap to its implementation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document