| Literature DB >> 21042496 |
Abstract
After a drug is confirmed as safe and efficacious in preclinical studies, it is tested in healthy human volunteers for first in man trials. In 2006, a phase I clinical study was conducted for a CD28 superagonist antibody TGN1412 in six human volunteers. After very first infusion of a dose 500 times smaller than that found safe in animal studies, all six human volunteers faced life-threatening conditions involving multiorgan failure for which they were moved to intensive care unit. After this particular incident, a lot was changed over how first in man trials are approved by regulatory authorities and the way clinical trials are conducted. This review primarily deals with preclinical studies conducted by TeGenero, results of which encouraged them to test the antibody on human subjects, reasons why this drug failed in human trial and aftermath of this drug trial. In addition, another drug-Fialuridine which failed in phase 2 clinical trial leading to death of five human subjects is briefly reviewed.Entities:
Keywords: Clinical trials; Fialuridine; TGN1412
Year: 2010 PMID: 21042496 PMCID: PMC2964774 DOI: 10.4103/0975-1483.66810
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Young Pharm ISSN: 0975-1483
Summary of learning points from the TGN1412 phase I study
| TGN1412 study problem | Detail | Learning Point |
|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of preclinical (primate) studies | Low-level cytokine release in primate studies should have promoted more caution | Minor but potentially important effects in preclinical studies should raise caution in crossing the species barrier |
| Use of human | Insufficient | |
| Choice of starting dose | Subtle difference between primate and human target ligand may explain marked difference in potency – the calculation of an initial dose based on a fraction of predicted ‘no adverse effect level’ proved dangerously wrong | Prediction of risk and dose range from animal studies may prove unreliable: extra caution with wider margins of safety are required with ‘potentially risky modes of action’ |
| Dosing interval between subjects | No ‘proper interval’ allowing for the observation of possible side effects was left between the dosing of one subject and the next | In fisrt-in-man studies, investigators should expect the unexpected |
| Preparation for adverse events | Preparation for possible adverse events (cytokine storm) was inadequate – investigators did not expect it, recognize it or treat early. | Where there is a known theoretical risk, investigators should plan for its potential occurrence |
Adapted from Dayan and Wraith[8]