Monthly Archives: March 2009

Cardiovascular Toxicity (QT prolongation) in Drug Development Overview

Nobody working in drug development can fail to be aware of the issue that is QT prolongation, however some people are finding they need a little more information if they are going to tackle and plan for it within their drug development programmes.

There are three main ways that cardiovascular toxicity can present itself:

  1. Changes to heart rate
  2. Changes to conductivity within the heart
  3. Changes to the repolarization of the heart (QT prolongation)

It is this QT prolongation that is obviously the hottest issue and is a consequence of impacting the repolarization of the cardiomyocytes. The pathway is the hERG channels are blocked, which increased the action potential of the cells in the heart, which in turn causes the QT prolongation.

This problem has been seen in a large number of drugs and has impacted on a great many drug development programmes, from complete removal of a drug from the market, to prescribing restrictions, delays in approval and a huge number of drugs killed at an early stage. It is also worth noting that there is not a pattern to those drugs affected and it appears to affect a large number of different drugs.

But what can be done to manage this risk? Well there are a wide variety of early discovery screens, In-vitro, Ex-vivo, and In-vivo.

The most common In-vitro study is the Patch Clamp – this is actually the gold standard study and involves measuring the current through the hERG channel (Ikr Chanel) to give an IC50 for the drug, this IC50 will give you an indication if you are going to see effects at therapeutic dose levels. Whilst this is the gold standard it is not a test that lends itself well to high throughput screening.

Another test is the hERG binding assay, this is a competitive assay that tests your drug against a radio labeled standard, this is a good test which can be used in high throughput screening, and is well correlated to the Patch Clamp test.

Another is the Rubidium Flux assay, where you load the cells with rubidium add your compound and KCl, this allows you to measure the rubidium excreted from the cell and from this judge hERG channel activity. This once again lends itself to even fast screening but there is some drop off in relation to the gold standard.

The final test is the membrane potential dye test, where cells are loaded with dye and as the hERG channel functions dye is flushed from the cell, this is the fastest test but least accurate.

The tests most commonly used are the hERG binding assay and Rubidium flux tests

In terms of Ex-vivo models the most popular are pukinji fiber tests and isolated heart tests, these whole tissue and whole organ tests are expensive but do provide a lot more information on what is going on and provide a wider insight.

In-vivo tests include dogs, non-human-primates, and pigs, rodents are not a good model for the human heart and should not be used. Again the expense of these models is made up for by the excellent data they provide. The studies are generally conducted in conscious animals which are remotely monitored, single dose cross over study designs are used, time and duration of effect is looked for and compared with systemic drug levels. Heart rate, ECG, Blood Pressure, Body Temperature, and activity levels are all monitored.

One of the most important things to look at is left ventricular pressure as this gives the greatest insight into normal function, Charles Rivers have done a great deal of work to validate this with Atenolo and Pimobedam. With both drugs systolic BP, diastolic BP and heart rate remained the same but changes in left ventricular pressure alluded to issues that needed to be addressed.

There are two guidelines that need to be referred to when planning these studies ICH57A (general safety pharmacology) and ICH57B (Specific QT prolongation regulations).

When assessing the Pre-clinical it is important to take a good look at the data and consider the following; what was actually observed as the assays are not 100% effective, any small flags will impact on clinical trial design, how will the expected PK/PD profiles impact on the results, will you expect patients to get into affected dose levels?

Before commencing human trials there are guidelines that need to be considered ICH E14 which gives instruction on the evaluation of QT prolongation in man, in some regions its now compulsory, but in others you can argue away from it with pre-clinical data.  In the clinic QT prolongation is tested in healthy volunteers at therapeutic doses and multiples thereof, metabolic inhibition may be needed to raise drug levels levels high enough, positive controls are also used (moxifloxacin).

Where QT prolongation is seen the following guidelines are provided:

  • <5 msec – no risk
  • 6-10 msec unlikely risk
  • >10 msec possible risk

These regulations are the same for cardiovascular drugs as for other therapy areas.

Another important thing to consider is that QT prolongation is not an issue that affects biologicals, as demonstrated by Vergas, Boss et al 2008 (J Pharmacol and Tox Method 58;72-76)

If you would like more detail in this area please get in touch with Damien Bové damien.bove@idaconsultants.com

Damien Bové works as a drug development consultant (pharmaceutical or biotechnology) and regulatory consultant, we work with our clients to define a drug development target, define a drug development strategy, define a regulatory strategy or define a commercial strategy. Our clients are generally raising funds or looking to license out their technology and we help them achieve it. If you want to know more don’t hesitate to get in touch.


ea featured 3 Cardiovascular Toxicity (QT prolongation) in Drug Development Overview

Inclusion of Women of Child Bearing Potential- new ICH guidance

There has been a major revision of the ICH guidance regarding the use of women of child bearing potential in clinical trials.

“In all ICH regions, inclusion of women of childbearing potential in clinical trials may be acceptable without non-clinical reproductive/development toxicology studies in certain circumstances”

The current ICH M3 states:

In the EU, assessment of embryo-fetal development should be completed prior to Phase I trials in women of childbearing potential.

In the US women of childbearing potential may be included in early, carefully monitored studies without reproduction toxicity studies provided appropriate precautions are taken to minimise risk.

The revise M3 states:

in all ICH regions women of child bearing potential can be included in clinical trials without non-clinical development toxicity studies (e.g., embryo-fetal studies) in certain circumstances.

In all ICH regions, women of child bearing potential can be included in repeated-dose Phase 1 and 2 trials prior to the conduct of the female fertility study since an evaluation of the female reproductive organs is performed in the repeated dose toxicity studies.

Two forms of contraception are required, one barrier and one hormonal.

Please note that in the EU this is NOT default position, it only applied in certain cases and includes restriction on numbers and duration.

This is important for a regulatory strategy and clinical development strategy front as it can have a huge impact on trial designs, and more importantly recruitment rates in early development. it also reduces the early stage burden in the development of female specific therapies.

If you would like more detail in this area please get in touch with Damien Bové damien.bove@idaconsultants.com

Damien Bové works as a drug development consultant (pharmaceutical or biotechnology) and regulatory consultant, we work with our clients to define a drug development target, define a drug development strategy, define a regulatory strategy or define a commercial strategy. Our clients are generally raising funds or looking to license out their technology and we help them achieve it. If you want to know more don’t hesitate to get in touch

Bioequivalence of Therapeutic Proteins

As the first major generation of therapeutic proteins come of age and their patents expire the possibility of “generic versions” has raised. However the regulatory pathway for such “generic” drugs does not fit the complexities of therapeutic proteins. However the EMEA released guidelines on so called biosimilars (follow-on biological product in the USA), and a number of products have made it to market, we ask what are the key learning’s.

The issues to overcome:

  • Large complex molecules and standard analytical methods do not allow their full physical characterisation
  • Heterogenicity due to natural processes in the host cells needed for their production
  • Modification introduced during production, purification, formulation and storage
  • Impurities introduced during production and purification
  • Production processes are dynamic and undergo continuous improvement
  • Changes are accepted if similarity can be established, their is no need to be identical
  • In house methods and standards are not in the public domain

The Regulations

The EMEA is the only regulator to introduce regulations, these regulations make it clear that biosimilars are not the same and are not regulated in the same was as generic drugs. The regulations hinges on clinical data, and needs to go through the centralised procedure. The regulations provide clear guidance on data requirements and quality standards that need to be established to gain market approval, the requirements include:

  • Same extensive data on quality and safety as an innovative protein drug
  • Supplement showing similarity in quality, safety and efficacy between biosimilar and the same reference product
  • Extensive comparability exercise is required to demonstrate that the similar biological medicinal product in terms of quality, safety and efficacy to the reference medical product
  • Assessment of biological properties.
  • Results of biological assays
  • Non-clinical and clinical focusing on Pharmacokinetic (PK), Pharmacodynamic (PD), efficacy and safety with a focus on immunogenicity

Practicle Experience

A recent product approved as a bio-similar, Retacrit has provided a number of insights into the process and how data is evaluated through the publication of its European Public Assessment Report (EPAR), the issues considered in detail included:

  • Structural comparability
  • Purity comparisons
  • Biological activity
  • PK profiles
  • Clinical effect and side effects (over 600 patients were used in the studies)

If you would like more detail in this area please get in touch with Damien Bové damien.bove@idaconsultants.com

Damien Bové works as a drug development consultant (pharmaceutical or biotechnology) and regulatory consultant, we work with our clients to define a development target, define a development strategy, define a regulatory strategy or define a commercial strategy. Our clients are generally raising funds or looking to license out their technology and we help them achieve it. If you want to know more don’t hesitate to get in touch

New Microdosing / Expolaratory drug studies – Phase I clinical Trials.

One of my Colleagues Dr Anthony Lockett recently attended a presentation by David R. Jones an expert scientific assessor (Pharmacotoxicologist) at the MHRA who gave a very useful update on the area of safety testing with regard to Phase I studies.

One of the topics under discussion was Microdosing in Phase 1 clinical trials.

There is a new section of the ICH M3 guidelines, – EXPLORATORY CLINICAL STUDIES

It has been recognised that in some cases insight on human physiology / pharmacology, knowledge of drug candidate characteristics and therapeutic target relevance to disease are benefited by earlier access to human data. This new section in the guidance hopes to provide an avenue to meet this end.

The rational is that if you screen drugs early in man, you enable better drug candidate selection, which means less overall exposure to man and reduced animal “wastage”, which in tern is good for the industry and good for the public. Even where you only have one drug candidate you can get an earlier decision on future development potential.

These exploratory clinical studies are intended to be conducted very early on in phase I, involve limited human exposure, there can be no therapeutic or diagnostic intent (this is very important) and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) style designs will not be accepted, these are strictly PK/PD studies.  Its not a free for all, some appropriate characterisation of pharmacology using in-vivo and/or in-vitro models is needed  to support dose selection. (the EMEA document of interest is EMEA/CHMP/SWP/28367/07 Guideline on strategies to identify and mitigate risks for first-in-man clinical trials with investigational medicinal products).

These new rules apply to all new chemical and biological IMP’s (investigational medicinal products) with the exception of gene and cell therapy products. The guidlines provides a detailed requirement for supporting non-clinical work and provides designs for the conduct of the trials.  (these should be read before any CTA is submitted). There are 5 approaches described, but other justifiable approaches can be discussed with the regulators. the Key feature is that non-clinical requirements are much reduced when compared to “traditional” exploratory studies in man.

  1. The first (microdosing) is limited to not more than a total of 100ug that can be divided among up to five doses in any subject
  2. The second (microdosing) is limited to 100ug per subject per administration to up to a total of 500ug
  3. Single dose study at sub-therapeutic or into anticipated therapeutic range studies. Maximum allowable dose is half the NOAEL
  4. 14 days of clinical dosing into the therapeutic range – PK/PD only not MTD
  5. 14 days of clinical dosing into the therapeutic range – PK/PD only not MTD – different designs

The non-clinical requirements are laid out in the guidance for these studies and are much reduced compared to what has been required in the past.

If you would like any assistance with these new guidelines or how you can use them to mange the risks in your programme or accelerate your development programme don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Click Here to Access – ICHM3 Expert Services – Click Here

Damien Bové works as a drug development consultant (pharmaceutical or biotechnology), we work with our clients to define a development target, define a development strategy, define a regulatory strategy or define a commercial strategy. Our clients are generally raising funds or looking to license out their technology and we help them achieve it. If you want to know more don’t hesitate to get in touch using the contact form or email Damien at damien.bove@idaconsultants.com

Clinical Trials in Eastern Europe

There has been allot of talk about running clinical trials in Eastern Europe, but what are the statistics and the feasibility, I have been looking at this and have some information to share.I have had a quick look at the following areas:

  • Hungary
  • Poland
  • Czech Republic
  • Slovenia
  • Slovakia
  • and some Baltic states

All the above appear to be great with clear and transparent regulations implementing the EU Clinical Trials Directive. Some other states have a less transparent regulatory system although they tend to stick to the EU Clinical Trials Directive:

  • Croatia
  • Bulgaria
  • Romania
  • Serbia
  • Bosnia
  • Macedonia

Then there is the less stable politically and economically and transparent regions which are generally the former Soviet Union States.

There are a number of advantages of working in these regions, they have large centralised state funded hospitals, with access to advanced medical technologies and high quality educated staff. A huge number of companies have been conducting trials in the area for some time and the infrastructure is there. All this means that patient accrual can be well above the levels expected in the EU and USA, typically 2 to 4 months ahead.

Investigators have huge access to untreated patients, there is less competition for patients, and the investigators tend to be very highly qualified, and participation in a western clinical trial is a sign of merit. The high quality of staff does not end with the investigators, CRA’s tend to be pharmacists and physicians, highly educated and competent people, this is expressed in the quality of the data, which typically surpasses  Western Europe standards. The FDA has no concerns over data coming from the region, in fact the FDA experiences a lower rate of voluntary action indicated (VAI) and Official Action indicated (OAI) than in the EU and USA.

However the one key driver is often price, investigator and study expenses are typically much lower and then monitoring costs are usually on 60-70% those seen in the EU and USA. I will be looking at the region for my next clinical trial.

If you would like to discuss this in more detail or get access to my contact in the region please get in touch.

As consultants working in the area of drug development, regulatory strategy and development strategy we are often involved in these kinds of document development processes and good housekeeping is vital. eCTD is coming to us all so its best we get up to speed as early as possible.

If you want to know more don’t hesitate to get in touch using the contact form or email Damien at damien.bove@idaconsultants.com

Access to Finance – New Yorkshire Forward Initative

Just a breif note on a new Yorkshire Forward initiative, Access to Finance for Healthcare.

It is a programme designed to assist healthcare technology companies prepare for and go out on fund raising programmes, right up to being introduced to investors.

The programme is being run by Grant Thornton in Leeds and is on the back of a successful programme that was run by Grant Thornton in London called Gateway to Finance. Access to the programme is via application http://www.investinginhealth.co.uk/ , it gives guidance and mentoring for the individuals running the companies / project seeking finance and helps with market assessments and business planning. it also introduces these companies / projects to investors.

It looks like a great programme and I will be introducing a number of the companies that I work with to the programme.

As consultants working in the area of drug development, regulatory strategy and development strategy we are often involved in these kinds of document development processes and good housekeeping is vital. eCTD is coming to us all so its best we get up to speed as early as possible.

If you want to know more don’t hesitate to get in touch using the contact form or email Damien at damien.bove@idaconsultants.com