Spindler Per, Seiler Jürg P
H. Lundbeck A/S, Ottiliavej 9, DK-500 Valby, Denmark.
Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2002 Apr;16(2):83-90. doi: 10.1046/j.1472-8206.2002.00074.x.
Pharmacology has traditionally been excluded from the mandatory application of good laboratory practice (GLP) principles. Consensus has been reached through the process of the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH, Topic S7A) with regard to the definitions of the different types of pharmacology studies (ICH S7A): primary pharmacodynamic, secondary pharmacodynamic and safety pharmacology studies, and guidance on the quality standards (expectations for GLP conformity) for these study types have been provided. Primary pharmacodynamic studies are the only study types that are fully exempt from GLP requirements. Secondary pharmacodynamic and safety pharmacology studies are expected to be conducted to GLP quality standards -- preferably to full, formal GLP compliance, when results are used for human safety assessment. At the present time, regulatory authorities will most likely be prepared to exercise flexibility in their requirement for GLP compliance, however, if non-clinical studies used in human safety assessment are not formally in compliance with the principles of GLP, regulatory acceptance may not be guaranteed. Historically, the application of formal GLP standards in safety pharmacology studies appears to vary between test facilities, and a number of study components in safety pharmacology studies, e.g. ECG monitoring, may not always conform to formal GLP standards. Apparently, however, formal GLP standards for these study components can be implemented for a relatively low additional cost. Based on the guidance given in the ICH S7A guideline, it thus appears logical to recommend that test facilities and sponsors consider their organisation of safety pharmacology studies in view of sound study management and formal implementation of GLP, where needed. Organisation of study management should facilitate collaboration across scientific disciplines because a plethora of data, originating from basic pharmacodynamics, toxicology, kinetics, and metabolism, as well as from clinical investigations, are involved in a safety pharmacology assessment. Applying formal GLP standards to safety pharmacology studies, and, when indicated, to secondary pharmacodynamic studies, does not influence the scientific standards of studies. However, applying formal GLP standards will ensure the quality, reliability and integrity of studies, which reflect sound study management. It is important to encourage a positive attitude among researchers and academics towards these lines, whenever possible. GLP principles applied to the management of non-clinical safety studies are appropriate quality standards when studies are used in the context of protecting public health, and these quality standards are therefore obviously pivotal for regulatory acceptance of non-clinical safety studies in general, and of safety pharmacology studies in particular.
传统上,药理学研究被排除在必须应用良好实验室规范(GLP)原则的范围之外。国际协调会议(ICH,主题S7A)已就不同类型药理学研究(ICH S7A)的定义达成共识:主要药效学、次要药效学和安全性药理学研究,并提供了这些研究类型的质量标准(符合GLP的期望)指南。主要药效学研究是唯一完全不受GLP要求约束的研究类型。次要药效学和安全性药理学研究应按照GLP质量标准进行——当结果用于人体安全性评估时,最好完全、正式地符合GLP规范。目前,监管机构很可能会在GLP合规要求上采取灵活态度,然而,如果用于人体安全性评估的非临床研究未正式符合GLP原则,可能无法保证监管机构的认可。从历史上看,正式GLP标准在安全性药理学研究中的应用在不同测试机构之间似乎存在差异,并且安全性药理学研究中的一些研究组成部分,例如心电图监测,可能并不总是符合正式的GLP标准。然而,显然为这些研究组成部分实施正式GLP标准的额外成本相对较低。基于ICH S7A指南给出的指导意见,因此建议测试机构和申办者从合理的研究管理和在必要时正式实施GLP的角度考虑其安全性药理学研究的组织安排,这似乎是合乎逻辑的。研究管理的组织安排应促进跨科学学科的协作,因为安全性药理学评估涉及大量源自基础药效学、毒理学、动力学、代谢以及临床研究的数据。将正式GLP标准应用于安全性药理学研究,并在适当时应用于次要药效学研究,不会影响研究的科学标准。然而,应用正式GLP标准将确保研究的质量、可靠性和完整性,这反映了合理的研究管理。尽可能鼓励研究人员和学者对这些方针持积极态度非常重要。当研究用于保护公众健康的背景下时,应用于非临床安全性研究管理的GLP原则是适当的质量标准,因此这些质量标准显然是监管机构普遍认可非临床安全性研究,特别是安全性药理学研究的关键。