Renal studies in safety pharmacology and toxicology: A survey conducted in the top 15 pharmaceutical companies

Introduction: With the recent development of more sensitive biomarkers to assess kidney injury preclinically, a survey was designed i) to investigate what strategies are used to investigate renal toxicity in both ICH S7A compliant Safety Pharmacology (SP) studies after a single dose of a compound and within repeat-dose toxicity studies by large pharmaceutical companies today; ii) to understand whether renal SP studies have impact or utility in drug development and/or if it may be more appropriate to assess renal effects after multiple doses of compounds; iii) to ascertain how much mechanistic work is performed by the top 15 largest pharmaceutical companies (as determined by R&D revenue size); iv) to gain an insight into the impact of the validation of DIKI biomarkers and their introduction in the safety evaluation paradigm; and v) to understand the impact of renal/urinary safety study data on progression of projects.

Methods: Two short anonymous surveys were submitted to SP leaders of the top 15 pharmaceutical companies, as defined by 2012 R&D portfolio size. Fourteen multiple choice questions were designed to explore the strategies used to investigate renal effects in both ICH S7A compliant SP studies and within toxicology studies.

Results: A 67% and 60% response rate was obtained in the first and second surveys, respectively. Nine out of ten respondent companies conduct renal excretory measurements (eg. urine analysis) in toxicology studies whereas only five out of ten conduct specific renal SP studies; and all of those 5 also conduct the renal excretory measurements in toxicology studies. These companies measure and/or calculate a variety of parameters as part of these studies, and also on a case by case basis include regulatory qualified and non-qualified DIKI biomarkers. Finally, only one company has used renal/urinary functional data alone to stop a project, whereas the majority of respondents combine renal data with other target organ assessments to form an integrated decision-making set.

Conclusion: These short surveys highlighted areas of similarity: a) urinary measurements are most commonly taken on repeat-dose toxicity studies, and b) renal SP studies are less often utilised. The two major differences are a) lack of consistent use of DIKI biomarkers in urinary safety studies and b) the way large pharmaceutical companies assess renal function. Finally, suggestions were made to improve the safety assessment methods for determining the safety of compounds with potential renal liability.