Phase 1 Clinical Trials of Small Molecules: Evolution and State of the Art

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J. Sramek ◽  
Michael F. Murphy ◽  
Sherilyn Adcock ◽  
Jeffrey G. Stark ◽  
Neal R. Cutler
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Drug Development ◽  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
Small Molecules ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Dose Range ◽  
Pharmacodynamic Modeling ◽  
Inpatient Setting ◽  
Conducting Phase ◽  
Safe Dose

Background: Phase 1 studies comprise the first exposure of a promising new chemical entity in healthy volunteers or, when appropriate, in patients. To assure a solid foundation for subsequent drug development, this first step must carefully assess the safety and tolerance of a new compound, and often provide some indication of potential effect, so that a safe dose or dose range can be confidently selected for the initial Phase 2 efficacy study in the target patient population. Methods: This review was based on a literature search using both Google Scholar and PubMed, dated back to 1970, using search terms including “healthy volunteers”, “Phase 1”, and “normal volunteers” , and also based on the authors’ own experience conducting Phase 1 clinical trials. This paper reviews the history of Phase 1 studies of small molecules and their rapid evolution, focusing on the critical single and multiple dose studies, their designs, methodology, use of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling, application of potentially helpful biomarkers, study stopping criteria, and novel study designs. Results: We advocate for determining the safe dose range of a new compound by conducting careful dose escalation in a well-staffed inpatient setting, defining the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) by reaching the minimally intolerated dose (MID). The dose immediately below the MID is then defined as the MTD. This is best accomplished by using appropriately screened patients for the target indication, as patients in many CNS indications often tolerate doses differently than healthy non-patients. Biomarkers for safety and pharmacodynamic measures can also assist in further defining a safe and potentially effective dose range for subsequent clinical trial phases. Conclusion: Phase 1 studies can yield critical insights to the pharmacology of a new compound in man and offer perhaps the only development period in which the dose range can be safely and thoroughly explored. Phase 1 studies often contain multiple endpoint objectives, the reconciliation of which can present a dilemma for drug developers and study investigators alike, but which can crucially determine whether a compound can survive to the next step in the drug development process.

Clinical Drug Development for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Collaboration With the Pharmaceutical Industry and Regulatory Agencies

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 214-219
Author(s):  
Robyn J. Barst
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension ◽  
Drug Development ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Preclinical Studies ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Preclinical Testing ◽  
New Drug ◽  
Pulmonary Arterial

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?

scholarly journals The clinical advances of proteolysis targeting chimeras in oncology

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Xie ◽  
Junjia Liu ◽  
Diego M. Alem Glison ◽  
Jason B. Fleming
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Small Molecules ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Preclinical Development ◽  
Protein Targets ◽  
Initial Discovery ◽  
Clinical Advances ◽  
Initial Clinical Evaluation

Proteolysis targeting chimeras (PROTACs) are a class of small molecules designed to target proteins for degradation. Their novel and unique modes of action provide PROTACs with the potential for their application in the management of both solid and hematologic malignancies. Since its initial discovery, the technology of targeted protein degradation, especially in the form of PROTACs, has had significant advances. A number of PROTACs have entered a late stage of preclinical development. Several of them are either in phase 1/2 clinical trials or approaching approval for initial clinical evaluation. This article discusses the preclinical and clinical findings of PROTACs of clinically relevant protein targets in cancer.

Barriers to phase I clinical trial protocol IRB approval at KCI

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9080-9080
Author(s):  
D. Wang ◽  
E. Heath ◽  
A. Powell ◽  
T. Chaperon ◽  
F. LaGrone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Drug Development ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Final Approval ◽  
Standard Language ◽  
Molecular Therapeutics

9080 Phase I oncology clinical trials are critical in the oncology drug development process. To protect human subjects, every phase 1 protocol must be approved by an institutional review board (IRB) to assure safety before patient accrual. As the volume and complexity of phase 1 trials have increased, the amount of time spent on IRB protocol reviews have also increased for various reasons. Objectives: 1) Determine the average time spent on protocol approval by IRB at KCI/WSU; 2) Identify potential issues raised by IRB resulting in approval delays; 3) Identify the redundancies for which “standard language” implementation could facilitate future IRB applications thereby expediting approval. Methods: 96 Phase 1 research IRB applications at KCI/WSU between 8/1/2005 and 10/31/2006 were reviewed. These applications were stratified based on submission (new protocol versus amendment) and IRB approval (tabled, provisional or approved) status. Concerns frequently brought up by the IRB were identified. Results: The average and median time spent from initial submission to final approval of all 96 applications were 41.4 days and 43 days, respectively. Forty eight of 96 applications (50%) were provisionally approved from the initial review. Average and median time of obtaining final approval were 52.5 days and 52 days. Nine of 96 (9.4%) protocols were tabled with their average approval 83 days. The most common concerns raised by IRB were risks/benefit issues. These concerns were an even greater approval barrier when protocols involved specialized technologies of molecular therapeutics or complicated study designs. Regulatory policy changes issued by oversight organizations also required “real-time” updates into protocols and consent form amendments. Areas of “standard language” for future IRB applications are being compiled and will be discussed upon presentation. Conclusion: Phase 1 clinical trials are essential to anti-cancer drug development. The complicated ethical issues and science warrant an ongoing constructive collaboration of both parties. Identification of commonalities that delay IRB approval will lead to more expeditious IRB approval not only at our institution, but could also benefit other institutions. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals 1098. A Phase 1 Safety and Tolerability of Single Ascending Doses of a Novel Engineered Cationic Peptide, PLG0206, in Healthy Subjects

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S641-S641
Author(s):  
David Huang ◽  
Despina Dobbins ◽  
Parviz Ghahramani ◽  
Jonathan Steckbeck
Keyword(s):  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Dose Range ◽  
Human Study ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Apparent Volume ◽  
Cationic Antimicrobial Peptide ◽  
Study Drug Administration ◽  
Prosthetic Joint Infections ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background PLG0206 is a novel engineered cationic antimicrobial peptide being evaluated for treatment of prosthetic joint infections (PJI). This abstract presents the results from the first in human study to evaluate the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of PLG0206 when administered as an intravenous (IV) infusion. Methods 6 cohorts of 8 participants were planned to receive escalating single 1-hour IV infusions of PLG0206 at 0.05, 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 mg/kg dose or placebo. Participants were randomized to receive either PLG0206 (6 per cohort) or placebo (2 per cohort). At each dose level, there were 2 sentinel participants (1 active, 1 placebo) who were dosed at least 48 hours in advance of the other participants in their group. Serial pharmacokinetic samples were taken prior to infusion and up to 48 post infusion. Safety and tolerability was assessed throughout the study. There was at least a 7-day period after dosing at each of the dose levels before dose escalation. Results PLG0206 was safe and well tolerated when administered to healthy volunteers at doses ranging from 0.05 and 1 mg/kg. Therapeutic exposures were achieved at 1 mg/kg. The 2 and 3 mg/kg cohorts were not studied. The incidence of treatment emergent adverse events related to study drug administration was low and most events mild (Grade 1) in severity and was similar between the PLG0206 treatment and placebo groups. There were no SAEs, life-threatening events or deaths throughout the study. IV PLG0206 exhibited linear PK over the dose range of 0.05 to 1.0 mg/kg. The median terminal half-life (t½) ranged from 7.37 to 19.97 hours. AUC0-∞ increased with increasing PLG0206 dose ranging between 1581.41 and 21141.52 ng.hr/mL. Cmax ranged between 256 and 2653 ng/mL. The mean apparent volume of distribution (Vz) increased was between 25.49 and 94.2 L, mean clearance (CL) were similar across all and ranged from 2.42 to 4.18 L/hour. Conclusion Following single IV infusion to healthy volunteers, PLG0206 was safe and well tolerated at doses ranging from 0.05 to 1 mg/kg. IV PLG0206 exhibits linear PK over the dose range. These findings support the ongoing development of IV PLG0206 and will inform dosing regimens in future studies to investigate its utility as an antimicrobial agent. Disclosures David Huang, MD, PhD, Peptilogics (Employee) Despina Dobbins, BS, Peptilogics (Employee) Parviz Ghahramani, PhD, PharmD, MSc, MBA, Peptilogics (Consultant) Jonathan Steckbeck, PhD, Peptilogics (Employee)

scholarly journals In vitrotoxicity and efficacy of verdinexor, an exportin 1 inhibitor, on opportunistic viruses affecting immunocompromised individuals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas G. Widman ◽  
Savanna Gornisiewicz ◽  
Sharon Shacham ◽  
Sharon Tamir
Keyword(s):  
Small Molecules ◽  
Nuclear Export ◽  
Viral Infections ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Dose Range ◽  
Adaptive Immune Response ◽  
Bk Virus ◽  
Healthy Human ◽  
Barr Virus ◽  
Epstein Barr

AbstractInfection of immunocompromised individuals with normally benign opportunistic viruses is a major health burden globally. Infections with viruses such as Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), human cytomegalovirus (HCMV), Kaposi’s sarcoma virus (KSHV), adenoviruses (AdV), BK virus (BKPyV), John Cunningham virus (JCPyV), and human papillomavirus (HPV) are significant concerns for the immunocompromised, including when these viruses exist as a co-infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). These viral infections are more complicated in patients with a weakened immune system, and often manifest as malignancies resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Vaccination is not an attractive option for these immune compromised individuals due to defects in their adaptive immune response. Verdinexor is part of a novel class of small molecules known as SINE (Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export) compounds. These small molecules demonstrate specificity for the nuclear export protein XPO1, to which they bind and block function, resulting in sequestration of XPO1-dependent proteins in the nucleus of the cell. In antiviral screening, verdinexor demonstrated varying levels of efficacy against all of the aforementioned viruses including previously with HIV. Studies by other labs have discussed likely mechanisms of action for verdinexor (ie. XPO-1-dependence) against each virus. GLP toxicology studies suggest that anti-viral activity can be achieved at a tolerable dose range, based on the safety profile of a previous phase 1 clinical trial of verdinexor in healthy human volunteers. Taken together, these results indicate verdinexor has the potential to be a broad spectrum antiviral for immunocompromised subjects for which vaccination is a poor option.

Metoclopramide: dose-related toxicity and preliminary antiemetic studies in children receiving cancer chemotherapy.

1985 ◽  
Vol 3 (8) ◽  
pp. 1136-1141 ◽  
Author(s):  
J C Allen ◽  
R Gralla ◽  
L Reilly ◽  
M Kellick ◽  
C Young
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Chemotherapy ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Dose Range ◽  
Toxicity Study ◽  
Dose Increase ◽  
Younger Adults ◽  
Nonrandomized Trial ◽  
Safe Dose

Prior studies in adults have shown that metoclopramide (MCP), when given in high intravenous (IV) doses (2 mg/kg), is a highly effective antiemetic for chemotherapy-induced vomiting. It is well-tolerated in older adults, but younger adults have an increased disposition to acute extrapyramidal reactions (EPRs). Before studying the efficacy of MCP as an antiemetic in children, we first had to establish the safe dose range. We performed a dose-increase MCP toxicity study in children receiving highly emetic chemotherapy such as cisplatin (120 mg/m2) or cyclophosphamide (greater than 900 mg/m2), beginning with a dose of 0.2 mg/kg and increasing the dose in nine steps to 3 mg/kg. MCP was given every two hours for four doses beginning one-half hour before chemotherapy. To reduce the incidence of EPRs, we added concomitant diphenhydramine. In MCP doses less than 2 mg, toxicity was minimal. In doses greater than or equal to 2 mg, 4/27 (15%) had EPRs and 9/27 (33%) had akathisia. Children who received two consecutive days of MCP had a higher frequency of EPRs. Metoclopramide (2 mg/kg) had promising antiemetic efficacy in a preliminary nonrandomized trial. Chemotherapy-experienced children vomited fewer than five times in 9/21 (43%) trials, and new patients vomited fewer than five times in 7/10 (70%) trials. MCP will become more useful as an antiemetic in children if better measures to prevent EPRs can be developed. Chemotherapy-induced emesis has the same negative implications in children as it does in adults and optimum antiemetic regimens can only be discovered by conducting randomized clinical trials in children.

scholarly journals Feasibility of conducting Phase 1 clinical trials in low-middle income countries (LMIC) - The case of Argentina

2018 ◽  
Vol WCP2018 (0) ◽  
pp. PO1-13-8
Author(s):  
Ventura A Simonovich ◽  
Mariana G Fernandez ◽  
Paula Scibona ◽  
Cintia V Cruz ◽  
Valeria Beruto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Conducting Phase ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Low Middle Income Countries

scholarly journals Phase 1 healthy volunteer willingness to participate and enrollment preferences

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 537-546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie C Chen ◽  
Ninet Sinaii ◽  
Gabriella Bedarida ◽  
Mark A Gregorio ◽  
Ezekiel Emanuel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
The United States ◽  
Willingness To Participate ◽  
Invasive Procedures ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Human Vaccine

Background/aims: Healthy volunteers in phase 1 clinical trials contribute to the development of safe drugs and other biologics and accept risks and burdens without anticipated health benefits from participation. Although emerging data have shown that healthy volunteers are influenced by risk, some still worry that financial incentives lead them to take on unreasonable risk. Yet little is known about healthy volunteers’ preferences and how they make choices about enrolling in research studies. Methods: We surveyed 654 healthy volunteers at the end of their participation in a phase 1 Pfizer trial in the United States, Belgium, and Singapore to examine their reported willingness to enroll in studies of different types, with various procedures, and with possible side-effects. Results: The majority of respondents were willing to join many kinds of studies, but fewer were willing to participate in first-in-human vaccine studies or studies of psychiatric drugs than in other study types. With regard to procedures, a substantial proportion were unwilling to participate in studies that involved invasive procedures, such as a lumbar puncture (45.4%) and bone marrow biopsy (42.3%), but willing to participate in studies with less invasive procedures such as a computed tomography scan of the heart (86.8%), magnetic resonance imaging (87.4%), and skin allergy testing (86.8%). Although there was some variation by gender and region, the majority were willing to participate in studies with side-effects like pain (80%) or nausea and vomiting (64%), but only a minority were willing to join if the research drug would result in their having a one in a million chance of death (34.4%), a small chance of kidney damage (16.7%), or influence how their mind works (23.2%; Figure 4). Conclusion: Our results suggest that healthy volunteers are willing to participate in a wide range of types of phase 1 clinical trials, and express preferences for low risk and familiar studies and study procedures, preferences which are partially affected by offers of payment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document