Literature DB >> 17998153

Duration of chronic toxicity studies for biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals: is 6 months still appropriate?

Janet Clarke1, Christopher Hurst, Pauline Martin, John Vahle, Rafael Ponce, Barbara Mounho, Shawn Heidel, Laura Andrews, Theresa Reynolds, Joy Cavagnaro.   

Abstract

For chronic use biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals, toxicity studies of 6 months have generally been accepted for regulatory approval. This review assessed the data for 23 approved biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals to determine whether the studies conducted were predictive of human safety and whether there is new data from approved products indicating that longer than 6 months is necessary. This assessment involved three approaches; whether new toxicities were identified at >6 months, similarity of findings between 6 months and shorter studies and predictivity of clinical adverse events. In two cases there were apparently new findings in studies >6 months. On examination however, one of these cases was a well established risk with foreign protein administration to animals (adalimumab). For insulin aspart, the 12 month study identified tumors not seen in shorter term studies, however, determination of carcinogenic potential is not a goal of chronic toxicity studies and is addressed by separate studies. In most cases the toxicology studies were predictive of common clinical adverse reactions, but were poorly predictive of rare clinical events or some serious adverse reactions. Although specific circumstances may require a longer study, this review indicates no new data is available to refute the utility of 6 month studies to support chronic clinical dosing with biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17998153     DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2007.08.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol        ISSN: 0273-2300            Impact factor:   3.271


  5 in total

1.  Should preclinical studies be registered?

Authors:  Jonathan Kimmelman; James A Anderson
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2012-06-07       Impact factor: 54.908

Review 2.  Practical considerations for nonclinical safety evaluation of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies.

Authors:  Carmel M Lynch; Bruce W Hart; Iqbal S Grewal
Journal:  MAbs       Date:  2009 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.857

3.  Preclinical development of monoclonal antibodies: considerations for the use of non-human primates.

Authors:  Kathryn Chapman; Nick Pullen; Lee Coney; Maggie Dempster; Laura Andrews; Jeffrey Bajramovic; Paul Baldrick; Lorrene Buckley; Abby Jacobs; Geoff Hale; Colin Green; Ian Ragan; Vicky Robinson
Journal:  MAbs       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 5.857

4.  Challenges and opportunities for the future of monoclonal antibody development: Improving safety assessment and reducing animal use.

Authors:  Fiona Sewell; Kathryn Chapman; Jessica Couch; Maggie Dempster; Shawn Heidel; Lise Loberg; Curtis Maier; Timothy K Maclachlan; Marque Todd; Jan Willem van der Laan
Journal:  MAbs       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 5.857

5.  A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health.

Authors:  Joël Spiroux de Vendômois; François Roullier; Dominique Cellier; Gilles-Eric Séralini
Journal:  Int J Biol Sci       Date:  2009-12-10       Impact factor: 6.580

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.