Clinical Pharmacology Modelling and Simulation, GlaxoSmithKline, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, UK.
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2024 Oct;51(5):511-520. doi: 10.1007/s10928-024-09905-y. Epub 2024 Mar 5.
2023 marks the 10th anniversary of Natpara's submission to the US FDA, which led to the first recorded regulatory interaction where a decision was supported by Quantitative and Systems Pharmacology (QSP) simulations. It had taken about 5 years for the timid QSP discipline to emerge as an effective Model-Informed Drug Development (MIDD) tool with visible impact in the pharmaceutical industry. Since then, the presence of QSP in the regulatory environment has continued to increase, to the point that the Agency reported 60 QSP submissions in 2020 alone, representing ~ 4% of their annual IND submissions [1]. What sort of industry mindset has enabled QSP to reach this level of success? How does QSP fit within the MIDD paradigm? Does QSP mean the same to Discovery and to Clinical Development projects? How do 'platforms' compare to 'fit-for-purpose' QSP models in an industrial setting? Can QSP and empirical Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic (PKPD) modelling be complementary? What level of validation is required to inform drug development decisions? This article reflects on all these questions, in particular addressing those audiences with limited line-of-sight into the drug industry decision-making machinery.
2023 年标志着 Natpara 向美国 FDA 提交申请的第 10 个年头,这导致了第一次有记录的监管互动,其中决策得到了定量和系统药理学 (QSP) 模拟的支持。大约 5 年时间,胆怯的 QSP 学科才作为一种有效的模型指导药物开发 (MIDD) 工具出现,并在制药行业产生了明显的影响。从那时起,QSP 在监管环境中的存在持续增加,以至于该机构仅在 2020 年就报告了 60 次 QSP 提交,占其年度 IND 提交的约 4%[1]。什么样的行业思维使 QSP 取得了如此成功?QSP 如何适应 MIDD 范式?QSP 对发现和临床开发项目意味着什么?在工业环境中,“平台”与“专用”QSP 模型相比如何?QSP 和经验药代动力学-药效学 (PKPD) 建模可以互补吗?需要进行何种程度的验证才能为药物开发决策提供信息?本文对所有这些问题进行了反思,特别是针对那些对药物行业决策机制了解有限的受众。