Worldwide Medicinal Chemistry, Pfizer Worldwide Research and Development, Groton, Connecticut 06340, USA.
Chem Res Toxicol. 2011 Sep 19;24(9):1345-410. doi: 10.1021/tx200168d. Epub 2011 Jul 11.
Because of a preconceived notion that eliminating reactive metabolite (RM) formation with new drug candidates could mitigate the risk of idiosyncratic drug toxicity, the potential for RM formation is routinely examined as part of lead optimization efforts in drug discovery. Likewise, avoidance of "structural alerts" is almost a norm in drug design. However, there is a growing concern that the perceived safety hazards associated with structural alerts and/or RM screening tools as standalone predictors of toxicity risks may be over exaggerated. In addition, the multifactorial nature of idiosyncratic toxicity is now well recognized based upon observations that mechanisms other than RM formation (e.g., mitochondrial toxicity and inhibition of bile salt export pump (BSEP)) also can account for certain target organ toxicities. Hence, fundamental questions arise such as: When is a molecule that contains a structural alert (RM positive or negative) a cause for concern? Could the molecule in its parent form exert toxicity? Can a low dose drug candidate truly mitigate metabolism-dependent and -independent idiosyncratic toxicity risks? In an effort to address these questions, we have retrospectively examined 68 drugs (recalled or associated with a black box warning due to idiosyncratic toxicity) and the top 200 drugs (prescription and sales) in the United States in 2009 for trends in physiochemical characteristics, daily doses, presence of structural alerts, evidence for RM formation as well as toxicity mechanism(s) potentially mediated by parent drugs. Collectively, our analysis revealed that a significant proportion (∼78-86%) of drugs associated with toxicity contained structural alerts and evidence indicating that RM formation as a causative factor for toxicity has been presented in 62-69% of these molecules. In several cases, mitochondrial toxicity and BSEP inhibition mediated by parent drugs were also noted as potential causative factors. Most drugs were administered at daily doses exceeding several hundred milligrams. There was no obvious link between idiosyncratic toxicity and physicochemical properties such as molecular weight, lipophilicity, etc. Approximately half of the top 200 drugs for 2009 (prescription and sales) also contained one or more alerts in their chemical architecture, and many were found to be RM-positive. Several instances of BSEP and mitochondrial liabilities were also noted with agents in the top 200 category. However, with relatively few exceptions, the vast majority of these drugs are rarely associated with idiosyncratic toxicity, despite years of patient use. The major differentiating factor appeared to be the daily dose; most of the drugs in the top 200 list are administered at low daily doses. In addition, competing detoxication pathways and/or alternate nonmetabolic clearance routes provided suitable justifications for the safety records of RM-positive drugs in the top 200 category. Thus, while RM elimination may be a useful and pragmatic starting point in mitigating idiosyncratic toxicity risks, our analysis suggests a need for a more integrated screening paradigm for chemical hazard identification in drug discovery. Thus, in addition to a detailed assessment of RM formation potential (in relationship to the overall elimination mechanisms of the compound(s)) for lead compounds, effects on cellular health (e.g., cytotoxicity assays), BSEP inhibition, and mitochondrial toxicity are the recommended suite of assays to characterize compound liabilities. However, the prospective use of such data in compound selection will require further validation of the cellular assays using marketed agents. Until we gain a better understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms associated with idiosyncratic toxicities, improving pharmacokinetics and intrinsic potency as means of decreasing the dose size and the associated "body burden" of the parent drug and its metabolites will remain an overarching goal in drug discovery.
由于存在一种先入为主的观念,即认为消除新候选药物中的反应性代谢物 (RM) 形成可以降低药物特发性毒性的风险,因此在药物发现的先导优化工作中,RM 形成的潜在风险通常会被常规检查。同样,避免“结构警报”几乎是药物设计的一项准则。然而,人们越来越担心,作为毒性风险预测因素的结构警报和/或 RM 筛选工具的潜在安全性危害可能被夸大了。此外,特发性毒性的多因素性质现在已经得到很好的认识,这是基于观察到除 RM 形成以外的机制(例如线粒体毒性和胆汁盐输出泵 (BSEP) 抑制)也可以解释某些靶器官毒性。因此,出现了一些基本问题,例如:当一个分子含有结构警报(RM 阳性或阴性)时,它是否值得关注?母体形式的分子是否会产生毒性?低剂量药物候选物是否真的可以降低代谢依赖性和非代谢依赖性特发性毒性风险?为了解决这些问题,我们回顾性地检查了 68 种药物(由于特发性毒性而召回或带有黑框警告的药物)和 2009 年美国的前 200 种药物(处方药和销售额),以了解它们的理化特性、日剂量、结构警报的存在、RM 形成的证据以及潜在的毒性机制(由母体药物介导)的趋势。总的来说,我们的分析表明,与毒性相关的药物中有相当大的比例(约 78-86%)含有结构警报,并且有证据表明 RM 形成是这些分子中 62-69%毒性的一个原因。在某些情况下,也注意到由母体药物介导的线粒体毒性和 BSEP 抑制是潜在的致病因素。大多数药物的日剂量超过数百毫克。特发性毒性与理化性质(如分子量、亲脂性等)之间没有明显的联系。2009 年处方药和销售额排名前 200 的药物中,大约有一半的药物化学结构中含有一个或多个警报,其中许多 RM 呈阳性。在 200 强药物中也发现了一些 BSEP 和线粒体的负债。然而,除了极少数例外,尽管这些药物已经使用了多年,但绝大多数都很少与特发性毒性有关。主要的区别因素似乎是日剂量;前 200 名药物中的大多数药物的日剂量都很低。此外,竞争解毒途径和/或替代非代谢清除途径为 200 强药物中的 RM 阳性药物的安全性记录提供了合适的理由。因此,虽然 RM 消除可能是减轻特发性毒性风险的有用且务实的起点,但我们的分析表明,在药物发现中需要一种更综合的化学危害识别筛选范式。因此,除了详细评估先导化合物的 RM 形成潜力(与化合物的整体消除机制有关)外,还建议对细胞健康(例如细胞毒性测定)、BSEP 抑制和线粒体毒性进行评估,以确定化合物的潜在风险。然而,要在化合物选择中前瞻性地使用此类数据,还需要使用市售药物进一步验证细胞测定。在我们更好地了解与特发性毒性相关的病理生理学机制之前,降低母体药物及其代谢物的剂量大小和相关的“体内负担”,提高药代动力学和内在效力仍然是药物发现的首要目标。