Successful Drug Development Despite Adverse Preclinical Findings Part 2: Examples

To illustrate the process of addressing adverse preclinical findings (APFs) as outlined in the first part of this review, a number of cases with unexpected APF in toxicity studies with drug candidates is discussed in this second part. The emphasis is on risk characterization, especially regarding the mode of action (MoA), and risk evaluation regarding relevance for man. While severe APFs such as retinal toxicity may turn out to be of little human relevance, minor findings particularly in early toxicity studies, such as vasculitis, may later pose a real problem. Rodents are imperfect models for endocrine APFs, non-rodents for human cardiac effects. Liver and kidney toxicities are frequent, but they can often be monitored in man and do not necessarily result in early termination of drug candidates. Novel findings such as the unusual lesions in the gastrointestinal tract and the bones presented in this review can be difficult to explain. It will be shown that well known issues such as phospholipidosis and carcinogenicity by agonists of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPAR) need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The latter is of particular interest because the new PPAR α and dual α/γ agonists resulted in a change of the safety paradigm established with the older PPAR α agonists. General toxicologists and pathologists need some understanding of the principles of genotoxicity and reproductive toxicity testing. Both types of preclinical toxicities are major APF and clinical monitoring is difficult, generally leading to permanent use restrictions

Global Recognition of Qualified Toxicologic Pathologists: Credential Review as a Potential Route for Recognizing the Proficiency of Pathologists Involved in Regulatory-type Nonclinical Studies*

Recent international summits of the International Federation of Societies of Toxicologic Pathologists (IFSTP) have debated the desirability and potential means by which the proficiency of an individual toxicologic pathologist might be recognized and communicated throughout the world. The present document describes the advantages and disadvantages of implementing such a global recognition system by any means, and provides a proposal whereby recognition might be accorded via rigorous credential review of a practitioner’s education and experience

International Recommendations for Training Future Toxicologic Pathologists Participating in Regulatory-Type, Nonclinical Toxicity Studies*

The International Federation of Societies of Toxicologic Pathologists (IFSTP) proposes a common global framework for training future toxicologic pathologists who will support regulatory-type nonclinical toxicology studies. Trainees optimally should undertake a scientific curriculum of at least 5 years at an accredited institution leading to a clinical degree (veterinary medicine or medicine). Trainees should then obtain 4 or more years of intensive pathology practice during a residency and/or on-the-job “apprenticeship,” at least 2 years of which must be focused on regulatory-type toxicologic pathology topics. Possession of a recognized pathology qualification (i.e., certification) is highly recommended. A non-clinical pathway (e.g., a graduate degree in medical biology or pathology) may be possible if medically trained pathologists are scarce, but this option is not optimal. Regular, lifelong continuing education (peer review of nonclinical studies, professional meetings, reading, short courses) will be necessary to maintain and enhance one’s understanding of current toxicologic pathology knowledge, skills, and tools. This framework should provide a rigorous yet flexible way to reliably train future toxicologic pathologists to generate, interpret, integrate, and communicate data in regulatory-type, nonclinical toxicology studies