Are current rat studies sensitive to detect blood pressure changes per the new FDA draft clinical blood pressure guidance?

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Kamila J. Sadko , Derek J. Leishman , Hannah Garver , Gregory Fink , Marc B. Bailie , Adam Lauver
{"title":"Are current rat studies sensitive to detect blood pressure changes per the new FDA draft clinical blood pressure guidance?","authors":"Kamila J. Sadko ,&nbsp;Derek J. Leishman ,&nbsp;Hannah Garver ,&nbsp;Gregory Fink ,&nbsp;Marc B. Bailie ,&nbsp;Adam Lauver","doi":"10.1016/j.vascn.2025.107777","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Released in 2022, the FDA's draft guidance “Assessment of Pressor Effects of Drugs”, proposes that a dedicated clinical study for chronic use drugs should be powered to rule out a potential systolic arterial blood pressure (BP) increase of 3 mmHg over 24 h. Given the resource commitment of clinical studies, sensitive nonclinical prediction of potentially meaningful BP increases would be valuable. This study aimed to determine the utility of long-term rat studies for detecting acute and chronic blood pressure changes. We hypothesized that studies using rats have adequate stability and variability to detect BP changes ≥3 mmHg over several weeks. Available data from a historic rodent assessment of 80 days duration (<em>N</em> = 9) in vehicle treated Sprague Dawley rats was used. The data were assessed for minimal detectable differences (MDDs), least significant differences (LSDs), and changes from baseline for all BP measures in light and dark 12 h, days, and weeks. Day 15 was used as the reference day and Day 43 as the comparison for day-to-day and light and dark changes from baseline to simulate a 4-week study with a week-long baseline assessment. In week comparison, week 2 was compared to week 5. A one-way <em>t</em>-test was conducted against an assumed mean difference of 0 to evaluate for significance. Study average difference from baseline for the dark cycle were 1.80 ± 1.42 (mean ± standard deviation), 1.99 ± 1.34, and 1.86 ± 1.25 mmHg for diastolic (Dia), systolic (Sys), and mean arterial pressure (MAP), respectively. Light cycle differences were 0.54 ± 1.23, −0.04 ± 1.101, and 0.143 ± 0.91 mmHg for Dia, Sys, and MAP . Day-to-day differences of 1.21 ± 1.29, 0.89 ± 1.12, and 0.931 ± 1.01 mmHg for Dia, Sys, and MAP were seen. Week-to-week differences were − 2.55 ± 1.47 mmHg for Sys, 2.30 ± 1.29 mmHg for MAP, and 1.87 ± 1.22 mmHg for Dia. Results were not significantly different from 0. Overall, rats demonstrated small insignificant changes from baseline in their blood pressure measures across a longitudinal study. The low variability observed was sufficient to encourage further evaluation of the minimal detectable differences which is currently underway.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16767,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pharmacological and toxicological methods","volume":"135 ","pages":"Article 107777"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pharmacological and toxicological methods","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1056871925001972","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Released in 2022, the FDA's draft guidance “Assessment of Pressor Effects of Drugs”, proposes that a dedicated clinical study for chronic use drugs should be powered to rule out a potential systolic arterial blood pressure (BP) increase of 3 mmHg over 24 h. Given the resource commitment of clinical studies, sensitive nonclinical prediction of potentially meaningful BP increases would be valuable. This study aimed to determine the utility of long-term rat studies for detecting acute and chronic blood pressure changes. We hypothesized that studies using rats have adequate stability and variability to detect BP changes ≥3 mmHg over several weeks. Available data from a historic rodent assessment of 80 days duration (N = 9) in vehicle treated Sprague Dawley rats was used. The data were assessed for minimal detectable differences (MDDs), least significant differences (LSDs), and changes from baseline for all BP measures in light and dark 12 h, days, and weeks. Day 15 was used as the reference day and Day 43 as the comparison for day-to-day and light and dark changes from baseline to simulate a 4-week study with a week-long baseline assessment. In week comparison, week 2 was compared to week 5. A one-way t-test was conducted against an assumed mean difference of 0 to evaluate for significance. Study average difference from baseline for the dark cycle were 1.80 ± 1.42 (mean ± standard deviation), 1.99 ± 1.34, and 1.86 ± 1.25 mmHg for diastolic (Dia), systolic (Sys), and mean arterial pressure (MAP), respectively. Light cycle differences were 0.54 ± 1.23, −0.04 ± 1.101, and 0.143 ± 0.91 mmHg for Dia, Sys, and MAP . Day-to-day differences of 1.21 ± 1.29, 0.89 ± 1.12, and 0.931 ± 1.01 mmHg for Dia, Sys, and MAP were seen. Week-to-week differences were − 2.55 ± 1.47 mmHg for Sys, 2.30 ± 1.29 mmHg for MAP, and 1.87 ± 1.22 mmHg for Dia. Results were not significantly different from 0. Overall, rats demonstrated small insignificant changes from baseline in their blood pressure measures across a longitudinal study. The low variability observed was sufficient to encourage further evaluation of the minimal detectable differences which is currently underway.
根据新的FDA临床血压指南草案,目前的大鼠研究对检测血压变化是否敏感?
FDA于2022年发布的指南草案“药物降压效应评估”建议,应针对慢性用药进行专门的临床研究,以排除24 h内潜在的收缩压(BP)升高3 mmHg的可能性。鉴于临床研究的资源承诺,敏感的非临床预测潜在有意义的血压升高将是有价值的。本研究旨在确定长期大鼠研究对检测急性和慢性血压变化的效用。我们假设使用大鼠的研究具有足够的稳定性和可变性,可以在数周内检测血压变化≥3 mmHg。本研究使用的是一项历史啮齿类动物评估的数据,该评估为80 天持续时间(N = 9)。评估数据的最小可检测差异(mdd),最小显著差异(lsd),以及在光照和黑暗12 h,天数和周内所有BP测量值与基线的变化。第15天作为参考日,第43天作为对照日,对比从基线开始的昼夜变化,模拟为期4周的研究,并进行为期一周的基线评估。在周比较中,将第2周与第5周进行比较。假设平均差为0,进行单向t检验以评估显著性。研究黑暗周期是1.80的平均差异从基线 ±1.42 (平均 ± 标准差),1.99 ± 1.34,和1.86 ±1.25  毫米汞柱,舒张压(Dia)、收缩压(Sys)和平均动脉压(MAP),分别。Dia、Sys和MAP的光周期差异分别为0.54 ± 1.23、- 0.04 ± 1.101和0.143 ± 0.91 mmHg。Dia、Sys和MAP的日差异分别为1.21 ± 1.29、0.89 ± 1.12和0.931 ± 1.01 mmHg。周而复始的差异 −  2.55±1.47  Sys mmHg, 2.30±1.29  毫米汞柱的地图,和1.87 ±1.22 Dia 毫米汞柱。结果与0无显著差异。总体而言,在一项纵向研究中,大鼠的血压测量值与基线相比发生了微不足道的变化。观察到的低变异性足以鼓励对目前正在进行的可检测到的最小差异进行进一步评价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of pharmacological and toxicological methods
Journal of pharmacological and toxicological methods PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-TOXICOLOGY
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
10.50%
发文量
56
审稿时长
26 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods publishes original articles on current methods of investigation used in pharmacology and toxicology. Pharmacology and toxicology are defined in the broadest sense, referring to actions of drugs and chemicals on all living systems. With its international editorial board and noted contributors, Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods is the leading journal devoted exclusively to experimental procedures used by pharmacologists and toxicologists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信