Dirven Hubert, Vist Gunn E, Bandhakavi Sricharan, Mehta Jyotsna, Fitch Seneca E, Pound Pandora, Ram Rebecca, Kincaid Breanne, Leenaars Cathalijn H C, Chen Minjun, Wright Robert A, Tsaioun Katya
Department of Environmental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Division for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 18;11(1):6403. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-85708-2.
Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) causes one in three market withdrawals due to adverse drug reactions, causing preventable human suffering and massive financial loss. We applied evidence-based methods to investigate the role of preclinical studies in predicting human DILI using two anti-diabetic drugs from the same class, but with different toxicological profiles: troglitazone (withdrawn from US market due to DILI) and rosiglitazone (remains on US market). Evidence Stream 1: A systematic literature review of in vivo studies on rosiglitazone or troglitazone was conducted (PROSPERO registration CRD42018112353). Evidence Stream 2: in vitro data on troglitazone and rosiglitazone were retrieved from the US EPA ToxCast database. Evidence Stream 3: troglitazone- and rosiglitazone-related DILI cases were retrieved from WHO Vigibase. All three evidence stream analyses were conducted according to evidence-based methodologies and performed according to pre-registered protocols. Evidence Stream 1: 9288 references were identified, with 42 studies included in analysis. No reported biomarker for either drug indicated a strong hazard signal in either preclinical animal or human studies. All included studies had substantial limitations, resulting in "low" or "very low" certainty in findings. Evidence Stream 2: Troglitazone was active in twice as many in vitro assays (129) as rosiglitazone (60), indicating a strong signal for more off-target effects. Evidence Stream 3: We observed a fivefold difference in both all adverse events and liver-related adverse events reported, and an eightfold difference in fatalities for troglitazone, compared to rosiglitazone. In summary, published animal and human trials failed to predict troglitazone's potential to cause severe liver injury in a wider patient population, while in vitro data showed marked differences in the two drugs' off-target activities, offering a new paradigm for reducing drug attrition in late development and in the market. This investigation concludes that death and disability due to adverse drug reactions may be prevented if mechanistic information is deployed at early stages of drug development by pharmaceutical companies and is considered by regulators as a part of regulatory submissions.
药物性肝损伤(DILI)导致了三分之一因药物不良反应而撤市的情况,造成了可预防的人类痛苦和巨大的经济损失。我们运用循证方法,使用同一类但毒理学特征不同的两种抗糖尿病药物来研究临床前研究在预测人类DILI中的作用:曲格列酮(因DILI从美国市场撤市)和罗格列酮(仍在美国市场)。证据流1:对罗格列酮或曲格列酮的体内研究进行了系统的文献综述(PROSPERO注册号CRD42018112353)。证据流2:从美国环保署的ToxCast数据库中检索了曲格列酮和罗格列酮的体外数据。证据流3:从世界卫生组织药物不良反应数据库中检索了与曲格列酮和罗格列酮相关的DILI病例。所有这三个证据流分析均按照循证方法进行,并根据预先注册的方案开展。证据流1:识别出9288篇参考文献,其中42项研究纳入分析。两种药物均未报告生物标志物在临床前动物或人体研究中显示出强烈的危险信号。所有纳入研究都有实质性局限性,导致研究结果的确定性为“低”或“非常低”。证据流2:曲格列酮在体外试验(129项)中的活性是罗格列酮(60项)的两倍,表明其脱靶效应更强的信号。证据流3:我们观察到,与罗格列酮相比,曲格列酮报告的所有不良事件和肝脏相关不良事件均有五倍差异,死亡人数有八倍差异。总之,已发表的动物和人体试验未能预测曲格列酮在更广泛患者群体中导致严重肝损伤的可能性,而体外数据显示两种药物的脱靶活性存在显著差异,为减少后期开发和市场中的药物损耗提供了新范式。本调查得出结论,如果制药公司在药物开发早期运用机制信息,且监管机构将其作为监管申报的一部分加以考虑,那么药物不良反应导致的死亡和残疾或许是可以预防的。