2000–2023 over two decades of ICH S7A: has the time come for a revamp?

IF 3.5 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, LEGAL
Jean-Pierre Valentin , Derek Leishman
{"title":"2000–2023 over two decades of ICH S7A: has the time come for a revamp?","authors":"Jean-Pierre Valentin ,&nbsp;Derek Leishman","doi":"10.1016/j.yrtph.2023.105368","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>The ICH S7A guideline on safety pharmacology studies released over 20 years ago largely achieved its objective “</span><span><em>to help protect </em><em>clinical trial</em><em> participants and patients receiving marketed products from potential adverse effects of pharmaceuticals”</em></span>. Although, Phase I clinical trials are generally very safe, the incidence and severity of adverse events, the safety related attrition and product withdrawal remain elevated during late-stage clinical development and post approval, a proportion of which can be attributed at least in part to safety pharmacology related issues. Considering the latest scientific and technological advancements in drug safety science, the paradigm shift of the drug discovery and development process and the continuously evolving regulatory landscape, we recommend revisiting, adapting and evolving the ICH S7A guideline. This might offer opportunities i) to select and progress optimized drugs with increased confidence in success, ii) to refine and adapt the clinical monitoring at all stages of clinical development resulting in an optimized benefit/risk assessment, iii) to increase likelihood of regulatory acceptance in a way compatible with an expedited and streamlined drug discovery and development process to benefit patients and iv) to avoid the unnecessary use of animals in ‘tick-the-box’ studies and encourage alternative approaches. As presented in the article, several options could be envisioned to revisit and adapt the ICH S7A taking into consideration several key features.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":20852,"journal":{"name":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","volume":"139 ","pages":"Article 105368"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230023000363","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The ICH S7A guideline on safety pharmacology studies released over 20 years ago largely achieved its objective “to help protect clinical trial participants and patients receiving marketed products from potential adverse effects of pharmaceuticals”. Although, Phase I clinical trials are generally very safe, the incidence and severity of adverse events, the safety related attrition and product withdrawal remain elevated during late-stage clinical development and post approval, a proportion of which can be attributed at least in part to safety pharmacology related issues. Considering the latest scientific and technological advancements in drug safety science, the paradigm shift of the drug discovery and development process and the continuously evolving regulatory landscape, we recommend revisiting, adapting and evolving the ICH S7A guideline. This might offer opportunities i) to select and progress optimized drugs with increased confidence in success, ii) to refine and adapt the clinical monitoring at all stages of clinical development resulting in an optimized benefit/risk assessment, iii) to increase likelihood of regulatory acceptance in a way compatible with an expedited and streamlined drug discovery and development process to benefit patients and iv) to avoid the unnecessary use of animals in ‘tick-the-box’ studies and encourage alternative approaches. As presented in the article, several options could be envisioned to revisit and adapt the ICH S7A taking into consideration several key features.

ICH S7A在2000年至2023年的二十年:是时候进行修改了吗?
20多年前发布的ICH S7A安全药理学研究指南在很大程度上实现了其目标“帮助保护临床试验参与者和接受上市产品的患者免受药物的潜在不良影响”。尽管I期临床试验通常非常安全,但在临床开发后期和批准后,不良事件的发生率和严重程度、安全性相关损耗和产品停药仍在上升,其中一部分至少可归因于安全性药理学相关问题。考虑到药物安全科学的最新科技进步、药物发现和开发过程的范式转变以及不断演变的监管格局,我们建议重新审视、调整和发展ICH S7A指南。这可能提供机会i)选择和开发对成功更有信心的优化药物,ii)完善和调整临床开发所有阶段的临床监测,从而进行优化的效益/风险评估,iii)以与加快和简化的药物发现和开发过程相兼容的方式增加监管接受的可能性,使患者受益;iv)避免在“勾选框”研究中不必要地使用动物,并鼓励替代方法。如本文所述,考虑到几个关键特性,可以设想几个选项来重新审视和调整ICH S7A。
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
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
8.80%
发文量
147
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology publishes peer reviewed articles that involve the generation, evaluation, and interpretation of experimental animal and human data that are of direct importance and relevance for regulatory authorities with respect to toxicological and pharmacological regulations in society. All peer-reviewed articles that are published should be devoted to improve the protection of human health and environment. Reviews and discussions are welcomed that address legal and/or regulatory decisions with respect to risk assessment and management of toxicological and pharmacological compounds on a scientific basis. It addresses an international readership of scientists, risk assessors and managers, and other professionals active in the field of human and environmental health. Types of peer-reviewed articles published: -Original research articles of relevance for regulatory aspects covering aspects including, but not limited to: 1.Factors influencing human sensitivity 2.Exposure science related to risk assessment 3.Alternative toxicological test methods 4.Frameworks for evaluation and integration of data in regulatory evaluations 5.Harmonization across regulatory agencies 6.Read-across methods and evaluations -Contemporary Reviews on policy related Research issues -Letters to the Editor -Guest Editorials (by Invitation)
×
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