Department of Pharmaceutics, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Innovation Studies, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2019 Jun 13;14(6):e0218014. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218014. eCollection 2019.
Poor translation of efficacy data derived from animal models can lead to clinical trials unlikely to benefit patients-or even put them at risk-and is a potential contributor to costly and unnecessary attrition in drug development.
To develop a tool to assess, validate and compare the clinical translatability of animal models used for the preliminary assessment of efficacy.
We performed a scoping review to identify the key aspects used to validate animal models. Eight domains (Epidemiology, Symptomatology and Natural History-SNH, Genetic, Biochemistry, Aetiology, Histology, Pharmacology and Endpoints) were identified. We drafted questions to evaluate the different facets of human disease simulation. We designed the Framework to Identify Models of Disease (FIMD) to include standardised instructions, a weighting and scoring system to compare models as well as factors to help interpret model similarity and evidence uncertainty. We also added a reporting quality and risk of bias assessment of drug intervention studies in the Pharmacological Validation domain. A web-based survey was conducted with experts from different stakeholders to gather input on the framework. We conducted a pilot study of the validation in two models for Type 2 Diabetes (T2D)-the ZDF rat and db/db mouse. Finally, we present a full validation and comparison of two animal models for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD): the mdx mouse and GRMD dog. We show that there are significant differences between the mdx mouse and the GRMD dog, the latter mimicking the human epidemiological, SNH, and histological aspects to a greater extent than the mouse despite the overall lack of published data.
FIMD facilitates drug development by serving as the basis to select the most relevant model that can provide meaningful data and is more likely to generate translatable results to progress drug candidates to the clinic.
动物模型中疗效数据的翻译质量差可能导致不太可能使患者受益的临床试验——甚至使他们面临风险——并且是药物开发中成本高且不必要淘汰的潜在因素。
开发一种工具来评估、验证和比较用于初步评估疗效的动物模型的临床可转化性。
我们进行了范围界定审查,以确定用于验证动物模型的关键方面。确定了八个领域(流行病学、症状学和自然病史-SNH、遗传学、生物化学、病因学、组织学、药理学和终点)。我们起草了一些问题来评估人类疾病模拟的不同方面。我们设计了疾病识别框架(FIMD),包括标准化的说明、加权和评分系统,以比较模型,以及帮助解释模型相似性和证据不确定性的因素。我们还在药理学验证领域增加了药物干预研究报告质量和偏倚风险评估。我们与来自不同利益相关者的专家进行了一项基于网络的调查,以收集对该框架的意见。我们在两种 2 型糖尿病(T2D)模型(ZDF 大鼠和 db/db 小鼠)中进行了验证的试点研究。最后,我们展示了两种杜氏肌营养不良症(DMD)动物模型的完整验证和比较:mdx 小鼠和 GRMD 狗。我们表明,mdx 小鼠和 GRMD 狗之间存在显著差异,尽管缺乏已发表的数据,但后者在更大程度上模拟了人类的流行病学、SNH 和组织学方面,而不仅仅是老鼠。
FIMD 通过作为选择最相关模型的基础,促进药物开发,该模型可以提供有意义的数据,并且更有可能产生可转化的结果,使候选药物进入临床。