|
Drug-Induced Liver Injury: A National and Global Problem
12-13 February 2001, Westfields Conference Center, Chantilly VA
Final Program
Monday, February 12, 2001
- Opening talks - Overview
- Welcome, Program Structure, Goals of the Conference
and Workshop
- Drug-Induced Liver Injury Impacts on the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA)
- Impact of Hepatotoxicity on the Pharmaceutical
Industry
- Impact Of Drug-Induced Liver Toxicity on Hepatology
and the Practice of Medicine
- State-of-the-Art Presentations
- Pre-Clinical Issues in Drug Development
- Clinical Picture and Issues in the Clinical Phases of Drug Development
- Post-Marketing: State of the Art and Issues Defined
Tuesday, February 13, 2001
- Current Topics in Hepatology
- How are these problems being addressed in Europe?
- Looking for hepatotoxicity, working up patients, and assessing causality
- Emerging Trends in Acute Liver Failure in the United States
- Pharmacogenomics: Dangerous drug or susceptible patient?
White Papers (Pre-Conference Study Documents)
|
Monday, February 12, 2001
Opening talks - Overview
- Welcome, Program Structure, Goals of the Conference and Workshop
John Senior, MD, Food & Drug Administration (FDA)
- Drug-Induced Liver Injury Impacts on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Robert Temple, M.D., Associate Director for Medical Policy Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA
- Impact of Hepatotoxicity on the Pharmaceutical Industry
Bert Spilker, Ph.D., M.D., Senior Vice President, PhRMA, Washington, D.C.
- Impact of Drug-Induced Liver Toxicity on Hepatology and the Practice of Medicine
William M. Lee, MD, Professor of Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Welcome,
Program Structure, Goals of the Conference and Workshop
John R. Senior, M.D., Food & Drug Administration (FDA)
Slide Presentation
Abstract: This program is organized to include active participants from
academia, the pharmaceutical industry, the regulatory Agency (FDA), and interested public
persons. We welcome them to consider together the problems of drug-induced chemical injury
to the liver, and how best we may work together to address, ameliorate, or solve those
problems for the benefit of patients and consumers who are using products with medicinal
effects.
More and more drugs are being taken by more and more people, not only
prescription products but also over-the-counter remedies, herbal agents and dietary
supplements, in addition to alcohol in various forms and amounts. The liver is the
principal organ for metabolizing, inactivating, and disposing of them. Their metabolites
may injure the liver cells, and complex drug-drug interactions complicate the situation.
It has become clear that certain individuals are much more susceptible to drug-induced
liver damage than are most people, and uncommon but severe idiosyncratic liver damage
requires special consideration as a safety problem. Not only are people genetically
diverse, which affects the way they metabolize drugs and other chemicals, but each
persons life experience is different. Drug-induced liver injury has become the
leading cause of acute liver failure among patients presenting for evaluation at liver
transplant centers in the United States, and the leading single cause for having to remove
approved drugs from the market.
These harsh facts have had major negative impacts on the Agency, the
pharmaceutical industry, and the practice of medicine, as will be delineated by
spokespersons from the three sponsoring organizations. We shall then assess the
state-of-the-art with respect to pre-clinical, clinical, and post-marketing activities
that have been and could be employed to attack the problems. The meeting is not intended
to profess what should be done, but to provide an opportunity to work together to ask what
more might be done. We shall explore the relationships between members of the sponsoring
organizations and a new construct for the public concept of drug safety.
We aim to call attention of the medical profession and the public to
the scope of the problem of drug hepatotoxicity. We hope to find better ways to detect it
and identify risk factors. We shall seek to develop consensus among the respective
constituencies on how they may work cooperatively on constructive research, improved
procedures, and communications.
Learning Objectives: After listening to this presentation participants
should be able to state two reasons why the problem of drug-induced liver injury has
arisen; list consequences of it to the FDA, PhRMA, and the AASLD; explain the derivation
and exact meaning of "idiosyncracy."
Biographical Sketch
John R. Senior, M.D.
John Senior is a native of Philadelphia. He was educated in chemical engineering at the
Drexel University and in physics at the Pennsylvania State University (B.S. in Physics).
After graduating from the School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, he
completed an internal medicine residency program and a clinical fellowship in
gastroenterology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. He then held a
National Institutes of Health Special Research Fellowship at Harvard University and the
Massachusetts General Hospital, where he worked out mechanisms of intestinal absorption of
triglyceride fats across the small intestinal epithelial cells. He returned to Penn to set
up a Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory at the Philadelphia General Hospital (PGH), and
there worked on detecting and characterizing "serum" hepatitis after transfusion
of blood. That hospital was the first in the world to screen all donor blood for the
marker ("Australia antigen") of the surface coat of viral hepatitis B. He was
closely associated with the discoverer of that antigen, Baruch Blumberg, who was awarded
the Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology in 1976 for its discovery. Senior was elected to
the Council of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, and became its
24th President 1973-4.
On sabbatical from PGH, he investigated the possibilities of computer simulation of
patients for purposes of testing candidates for certification by the American Board of
Internal Medicine, and developed models of tests that have evolved and currently are in
use as the Computer-Based Examination (CBX). Returning to Penn at the Graduate Hospital
(PGH had been closed by the City), he directed activities of its Clinical Research Center.
Later, he opened a special Treatment Unit for Alcohol-Related Disorders (STUARD) that
provided advanced levels of care for 3500 patients with life-threatening medical
complications of alcohol abuse referred from Philadelphia and its surrounding counties
over a five-year period from 1974-9.
He worked in pharmaceutical research and development at Squibb as a Director of
Regulatory Projects from 1979-81, and at Sterling-Winthrop Research Institute as Vice
President for Worldwide Clinical Affairs, 1981-4. Subsequently (1984-95), he was an
independent consultant to pharmaceutical companies in Japan, Europe, and North America for
design, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials for New Drug Applications (NDAs). In
June 1995 he joined the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research of the Food and Drug
Administration, as a medical reviewer for gastrointestinal drug products. In January 2000
he moved to the Office of Postmarketing Drug Risk Assessment, where he is currently Senior
Scientific Advisor to the Director, with special focus on drug-induced liver injury and
drug safety.
He is married to the former Sara Elizabeth Spedden; they have three grown children and
seven grandchildren. He remains active as an Adjunct Professor of Medicine at the School
of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania. He is retired from the Navy as a Rear Admiral,
Medical Corps, United States Naval Reserve.
Back to Top
Drug-Induced Liver Injury Impacts on the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Robert Temple, M.D., Associate Director for Medical Policy
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA
Slide Presentation
Abstract: Hepatotoxicity has been, over the years, the most important
single cause of withdrawals and marked limitations of use of drugs or refusal to approve
them. In the 1950s, iproniazid (Marsilid) was probably the most hepatotoxic drug
ever marketed, but isoniazid, from the same period, has been found to cause serious
hepatotoxicity in about 0.1% of recipients. Benoxaprofen (Oraflex), ticrynafen (Selacryn),
bromfenac (Duract) and troglitizone (Rezulin) all were withdrawn because of
hepatotoxicity, and ibufenac, perhexilene and dilevalol, all marketed abroad, were never
approved in the United States. Hepatotoxicity has caused important limitations of use for
many drugs, including isoniazid, labetalol, dantrolene, felbamate, pemoline, tolcapone,
and trovafloxacin.
In most cases, the hepatotoxicity of these drugs was recognized late, as neither animal
nor human experience before marketing yielded recognizable (or recognized) signals of
hepatotoxic potential. Yet most of the drugs did cause a greater rate of transaminase
elevation than controls and most also were associated with at least a few instances of
transaminase elevation accompanied by elevated bilirubin or jaundice.
Post-marketing surveillance now detects serious hepatotoxins in months (bromfenac,
tolcapone, troglitizone, trovafloxacin), in marked contrast to the years of delay in the
past (iproniazid, isoniazid), but it is obviously preferable to discover them before
marketing.
It is critical to evaluate the predictive ability (sensitivity, specificity) of various
potential signals of injury, notably transaminase elevations of various degrees (3 fold, 5
fold, etc.) and frequencies (2%, 3%, etc.) and serum transaminase elevations accompanied
by elevated bilirubin, a particularly troublesome combination that seems to predict a
roughly 10% rate of serious injury, as noted by Zimmerman in 1978. This pattern has been
seen recently with dilevalol (not approved in U.S.), bromfenac, and troglitizone, and may
have predicted the ultimate serious injury rate. For example, the approximately 0.1% rate
of that combination with troglitizone is not far from one tenth of the annual rate of
1/10-50,000 of serious trogitizone injury.
Refinement of these possible pre-marketing signals of injury is a major regulatory and
public health task.
Biographical Sketch
Robert J. Temple, M.D.
Dr. Robert Temple is Director of the Office of Medical Policy of FDAs Center for
Drug Evaluation and Research and is also Acting Director of the Office of Drug Evaluation
I (ODE-I). ODE-I is responsible for the regulation of cardio-renal, oncologic and
neuropharmacologic/psychopharmacologic drug products. The Office of Medical Policy is
responsible for regulation of promotion though the Division of Drug Marketing,
Advertising, and Communication, and for assessing quality of clinical trials through the
Division of Scientific Investigations.
Dr. Temple was born in New York City, July 18, 1941. He received a B.A. Magna cum Laude
from Harvard College in 1963 and received the M.D. degree from New York University School
of Medicine in 1967. At NYU he was elected to Alpha Omega Alpha. He completed an
internship and residency in internal medicine at the Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center
in 1969. He is board-certified in internal medicine and clinical pharmacology.
Dr. Temple was a Clinical Associate and then Chief Clinical Associate in the Clinical
Endocrinology Branch of the National Institute of Arthritis, Metabolism, and Digestive
Diseases, National Institutes of Health from 1969-1972, investigating the effects of
lithium on the thyroid and examining the effects of agents that disrupt microtubules on
steroid secretion.
He became a reviewing Medical Officer in the Division of Metabolic and Endocrine Drug
Products in 1972, and moved to become Assistant to the Director of the Bureau of Drugs in
1974. In 1976, he became the Director of the Division of Cardio-Renal Drug Products,
serving in that role until 1982. From 1982 to 1988 he was Acting Director and then
Director of the Office of Drug Research and Review. The responsibilities of that office
have been divided in various ways, most recently (since 1995) among five Offices of Drug
Evaluation (ODEs 1-5). Among other awards, he has received FDAs Award of Merit
on six occasions, three Commissioners Special Citations, the Public Health Service
Superior Service Award, the DHHS Distinguished Service Award, the Secretarys Special
Citation, and the Drug Information Association Outstanding Service Award.
Dr. Temple is on the editorial board of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. He was
on the Board of Directors of the Society for Clinical Trials from 1983-1987 and was
President of the Society in 1987. He is an honorary Fellow of the American College of
Clinical Pharmacology.
Back to Top
Impact of Hepatotoxicity on the Pharmaceutical Industry
Bert Spilker, Ph.D., M.D.
Senior Vice President, PhRMA, Washington, D.C.
Slide Presentation
Abstract: A fundamental question for various
stakeholders to address is "how rare or mild does hepatotoxicity have to be for a
drug to be approved and to remain on the market?" At this meeting we will review the
relevant factors that go into this decision. Regulatory agency, industry, and societal
decisions depend on both sound science and balancing benefits and risks. But if the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) raises standards based on political pressures rather than
sound science, it will deter some research and discourage new drug development, The FDA is
sometimes pressured by the media to act in haste and set unreasonable standards. The
media, in turn, are often responding to outspoken consumer extremists who have other
interests than seeking sound scientific answers, and they spread disinformation.
Our challenge is to insure that claims or accusations of
hepatotoxicity must be demonstrated with persuasive scientific evidence before a drug is
removed from the market. We must be able to separate signals from noise, and anecdotes
from facts.
The three goals for this meeting are to consider how to
(1) create a sound research agenda that will improve scientific understanding and counter
unsupported allegations of drug risk, (2) develop more approaches for extrapolating
hepatic data and for using postmarketing data optimally, and (3) develop a mechanism to
monitor progress on both the research agenda and development of extrapolation principles
and postmarketing approaches. In addition, we must evaluate the various strategies for
risk communication and risk management.
Industry is committed to working with all stakeholders on
this issue to assure continued patient safety.
Biographical
Sketch
Dr. Bert Spilker
Bert Spilker, PhD, MD, FCP, FFPM, is
the Senior Vice President of Scientific and Regulatory Affairs for PhRMA (Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturers of America) based in Washington, D.C. He was President and
cofounder (in 1993) of Orphan Medical, Inc., a public pharmaceutical company that develops
and markets important medical products for patients with uncommon diseases. He is Clinical
Professor of Pharmacy Practice at the University of Minnesota and Adjunct Professor of
Medicine and Pharmacy at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. He is well known
as the author of 15 books on clinical trial methods and the processes of drug discovery
and development. These books are considered by many as the standard references on clinical
trials and drug development. He has worked at four major pharmaceutical companies for over
20 years (Pfizer, Philips-Duphar, Sterling-Winthrop, and Burroughs Wellcome) in medicine
discovery, development, and management. He serves on the Steering Committee for the
International Conference on Harmonization, or ICH, and has received numerous honors
including the FDA Commissioners Special Citation for work in the orphan medicine
area. His medical training in pharmacology and internal medicine was at Cornell Medical
College, State University of New York (Downstate Medical Center), University of California
at San Francisco, University of Miami Medical School (Ph.D. to M.D. Program) and Brown
University Medical School.
Back to Top
Impact of
Drug-Induced Liver Injury on Hepatology and the Practice of Medicine
William M. Lee, MD
Professor of Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Slide Presentation
Abstract: Among the joys of good health are digestion of food and elimination of
internally-derived toxins, functions primarily supplied by the gastrointestinal tract and
kidneys respectively. However, the processing and excretion of all absorbed xenobiotics
(foreign substances) is the province of the liver. Building upon, but exceeding in
complexity, the functions of the gut and kidney, normal hepatic function is a third
essential for good health. Drug reactions that interfere with hepatic function and are
life-threatening are extremely rare, given the number of xenobiotics ingested. The marvel
is that a single liver can and does metabolize as many as 12 drugs at a time without
evidence of injury or even of buildup of any one of the various compounds ingested. As a
result, patients and physicians assume (or take for granted) that the liver will perform
its job faithfully with never a complaint.
Metabolism of xenobiotics involves the creation of activated intermediate compounds
that rarely bind to cell proteins with subsequent hepatocyte damage, either directly or by
invoking immune responses. The final result is often massive and sudden necrosis of liver
cells, multi-organ failure and death. This rare but catastrophic event finds clinicians
and patients unaware of the potential disaster and un-prepared to deal with a rapidly
deteriorating situation. The likelihood of drug toxicity varies among individual agents
and among drug classes. Many physicians are not familiar these varying propensities for
drug toxicity. Even if they are aware of the possible consequences, physicians seldom give
patients specific instructions that might be life-saving such as what to do should dark
urine or jaundice develop. The very rarity of severe liver injury due to drugs represents
its fundamental virtue and problem. We cannot develop an appropriate cost-effective
response for events as infrequent as 1:50,000 prescriptions. How much instruction should a
patient receive for such events? If a toxic reaction is recognized with a given agent, how
much advertising in the post-marketing period should be directed at education of
physicians to potential but rare events that seldom occur? Fear of drugs by physicians or
patients limits their use. Withdrawal of drugs due to rare toxicity deprives patients of
potential benefits. Caution, particularly in regard to drugs with known hepatotoxicity
such as isoniazid, may lead to closer supervision, monitoring of liver function tests, or
limitation of use to the least susceptible patients.
Physicians want to know how to avoid the risks and how to become educated regarding
drug toxicity. They want safe drugs but realistically know that universal safety cannot be
guaranteed. Yet they seldom participate in the efforts to monitor drug reactions; adverse
events are reported to FDA less than 10% of the time. Improved methods of post-marketing
surveillance should result in more rapid identification of potential toxins whose initial
clinical assessments did not identify drug events. Education directed at recognition of
the symptoms of acute liver failure might lead to earlier withdrawal of toxins and prompt
institution of intensive care.
The three constituencies represented at this conference should dedicate their efforts
to greater education of physicians and patients concerning drug toxicity and severe liver
injury with the goal of identifying harmful effects more reliably and preventing these
potentially avoidable events.
Biographical Sketch
William M. Lee, MD
Professor of Internal Medicine and Director, Clinical Center for Liver Disease
University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas.
Dr. Lee was educated at Amherst College and received his medical degree
from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, completing his training in
Internal Medicine at the Presbyterian Hospital, New York City (Columbia-Presbyterian
Medical Center). He served as Honorary Registrar and Research Fellow to Dr. Roger Williams
at the Liver Unit, Kings College Hospital, London from 1973-74, then was on the faculty of
Columbia-Presbyterian until 1980. In that year, he became an Associate Professor and
later, Professor and Chief of the Division of Gastroenterology at the Medical University
of South Carolina, Charleston, SC between 1980 and 1990. Since his arrival at UT
Southwestern in 1990, he has continued to do clinical and basic research. Four review
articles in the New England Journal of Medicine define his main areas of research and
clinical interest: The Extra-Cellular Actin-Scavenger System, 1992, Acute Liver Failure
1993, Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity 1995, Hepatitis B Virus Infection 1997.
The Clinical Center at UT Southwestern is the largest site in Texas
performing viral hepatitis clinical trials (9 on payroll, 22 active protocols). Dr. Lee
serves as one of 10 principal investigators in the HALT-C study sponsored by the NIDDK, an
8 year study to determine the safety and efficacy of long-term interferon therapy for
hepatitis C non-responder patients. He is the principal investigator for the Acute Liver
Failure Study Group comprising 39 sites around the U.S. sponsored by the NIDDK.
Back
to Top
State-of-the-Art Presentations
- Pre-Clinical Issues in Drug Development
François Ballet M.D., Ph.D., Aventis, Paris
- Clinical Picture and Issues in the Clinical Phases of
Drug Development
Neil Kaplowitz, M.D., University of Southern
California, Los Angeles
- Post-Marketing: State of the Art and Issues Defined
Peter K Honig, MD, MPH,Director, Office of
Postmarketing
Drug Risk Assesment, FDA
Pre-Clinical Issues in Drug Development
François Ballet M.D., Ph.D.
Aventis, Paris
Slide Presentation
Abstract: Despite
considerable progress in the understanding of the mechanisms of liver toxicity, we are not
yet able to design non-hepatotoxic drugs rationally. Also there are no
" universal " high throughput molecular or cellular screening
approaches that could be apply systematically at the hit or lead generation phase of drug
development to screen for hepatotoxicity. Therefore it is not surprising that in most
cases hepatotoxicity is detected at later stages of drug development when animal (usually
rat and dog) toxicity studies are performed, during the course of clinical trials or even
at a later stage when a drug is on the market.
Very few studies have been conducted on the incidence of hepatotoxicity
in drug development and on the predictive value of animal toxicity studies. Based on
available data the liver appears to be the most common target organ for toxicity
encountered during the course of drug development. Also, based on available surveys, the
predictive value of animal hepatotoxicity studies appears to be limited. Idiosyncratic
hepatotoxicity cannot be detected by conventional animal toxicity studies. Interspecies
differences in bioavailability, distribution and metabolism may also explain a number of
false positives and false negatives. There is clearly a need to better understand the drug
metabolism enzyme profile of the most commonly used non-rodent species i.e. the dog and
the monkey. Some false negative results may be related to insufficient exposure of the
animals either because the doses tested were too low or because intestinal absorption was
poor. Certain liver abnormalities may occur only in diseased models (e.g. drug-induced
hyperbilirubinemia in severe infection) and therefore cannot be detected in healthy
laboratory animals. Finally certain liver changes, e.g. liver hyperplasia, are common
findings in laboratory animals butb are considered to be of no clinical significance in
man.
A number of criteria are being used to assess the clinical significance
of animal toxicity data : (a) type/severity of injury (b) reversibility (c) mechanism
of toxicity (d) interspecies differences (e) availability of sensitive biomarkers of
toxicity (e) safety margin (non toxic dose/pharmacologically active dose) (f) therapeutic
potential. Contrary to other target organs (e.g. kidney, adrenal, heart), minimal and
reversible liver injury can be detected in early clinical trials by monitoring liver
enzymes. Therefore in certain cases it may be justified to test in man a drug found to be
hepatotoxic in pre-clinical studies, especially when the therapeutic value is high.
In recent years toxicogenomic and proteomic approaches have been tested
with the aim of developing more efficient in vitro screening assays. It is important to
realize that these technologies are based on cellular models with intrinsic limitations in
term of in vivo relevance. Also they represent a formidable challenge in term data
management and interpretation. Based on current experience the most valuable use of these
"transcript expression profile" approaches appears to be "secondary"
screening for back-up selection and investigation of toxicity mechanisms.
A better understanding in the molecular mechanisms of hepatotoxicity in
man is a critical prerequisite for any improvement in the detection of hepatotoxicity
during the pre-clinical phase of drug development. Identification of critical molecular
toxicity targets can lead to the design of pertinent molecular or cellular screening
assays or to the development of new biomarkers/endpoints for in vivo studies.
Pharmacogenetic techniques should be more systematically applied to patients with
idiosyncratic toxicity in order to identify critical suceptibility genes which could lead
secondarily to identification of mechanisms. Also a more systematic/prospective analysis
of animal and human hepatotoxicity data encountered during the course of drug development
should be carried-out as a joint effort between industry and regulatory agencies to
improve the toxicology strategy.
Finally another important aspect is the need to improve communication
and to foster exchanges between toxicologists (Ph.Ds/DVMs) and clinicians (M.Ds) in
industry and in academia. Indeed, in the opinion of the author, an inter-disciplinary and
more integrated approach is a key factor to improve the testing strategy for
hepatotoxicity in the pre-clinical phase of drug development.
Learning objectives: After hearing this presentation,
listeners should be able to list or outline
- The different steps of the drug discovery and development process;
- Main principles of animal toxicology studies;
- How to use data from animal toxicology studies for go/no go decision;
- Specific issues related to hepatotoxicity in animals (liver hyperplasia, enzyme
induction
);
- Predictive value of animal toxicity studies. Causes for false-negatives and
false-positives;
- Screening strategy for hepatotoxicity;
- Role of mechanistic studies;
- New approaches (toxicogenomics, proteomics, pharmacogenetics
);
- How to improve predictivity of animal toxicity studies ?
Biographical
Sketch
François Ballet M.D., Ph.D.
Dr. Ballet received his
M.D. degree in 1976 from the University of Paris. He subsequently completed a board
certification in Hepatology and Gastroenterology at the Saint-Antoine Hospital of the
University of Paris. He then held a French Association for Cancer Research fellowship at
the Hepatology Department of the Saint-Antoine Hospital where he worked on in vitro models
for predicting sensitivity of tumors cells to anticancer drugs. He then joined INSERM
(French National Institute of Health) in 1980 as a research scientist and there worked in
particular on hepatic transport of drugs, liver microcirculation in normal and cirrhotic
liver, hepatocellular carcinoma and hepatotoxicity. In 1985, he became head of Liver
Physiology and Pharmacology group at INSERM at Hospital Saint-Antoine in Paris. In 1988 he
completed a Ph.D. in Pharmacology at the University of Paris. Concomitantly between 1979
and 1989 he worked as a consulting Hepatologist and Gastroenterologist in the Hepatology
Department of Saint-Antoine Hospital.In 1989, he joined the Research Center of Rhône-Poulenc Rorer at
Vitry-sur-Seine, France (near Paris) in the Drug Safety Department as a senior
toxicologist. The department carried out all regulatory pre-clinical toxicology studies
(general, reproductive and genetic toxicology as well as carcinogenicity assessment) for
NCE registration, in vitro screening for early compound selection and investigative
studies to determine mechanism(s) of toxicity and included 120 scientists and technicians.
He then became Director of Investigative and Genetic Toxicology and in 1996 he was
appointed head of the Drug Safety Department. In October 1999, following the merger of Rhône-Poulenc Rorer and
Hoechst Marion Roussel, he was appointed Vice-President in the new Aventis Pharma
organization in charge of the Drug Innovation and Approval (R&D) Operations in France.
In this position he had in particular to manage the integration and reorganization of the
R&D activities and sites of the former companies in France and UK.
Dr. Ballet is member of several expert committees at the European
Commission and at the French Ministry of Research and Education. He is board certified by
the American Board of Toxicology.
Back
to Top
Clinical Picture and Issues in the
Clinical Phases of Drug Development
Neil Kaplowitz, M.D.
University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Slide Presentation
Slide: Risk of Hepatotoxicity
Drug-induced liver disease can mimic all forms of acute and chronic hepatic diseases.
However, the predominant clinical presentations resemble acute icteric hepatitis or
cholestatic liver disease. The former is of grave significance as the mortality
approximates 10% due to acute liver failure. Hepatitis-like reactions are accompanied by
systemic symptoms, jaundice, markedly increased serum transaminases, and, in more severe
cases coagulopathy and encephalopathy. Cholestatic reactions, although not usually life
threatening, present with jaundice, disproportionate increased serum alkaline phosphatase
and pruritus: these reactions may resolve slowly and lead to vanishing bile duct disease
and rarely biliary cirrhosis.
Some presumptive mechanistic information can be deduced from the frequency and the
latency of adverse events. High frequency and short latency suggest that the parent drug
or metabolite is directly toxic. Low frequency and longer latency suggest either
immune-mediated (within 4-6 weeks), or metabolic idiosyncratic toxicity (variable but
delayed). Irrespective of the mechanism, i.e. immune-mediated or
"idiosyncratic", and notwithstanding low incidence, these reactions often occur
on the background of more frequent anicteric, transient milder liver injury. The
relationship between the frequent mild injury and rare severe injury is unclear. Does the
mild injury reflect a propensity or signal for serious problems? Does severe injury
reflect impaired adaptation - in other words is it the handling of the drug or of the
injury or both which determines the occurrence of overt or severe liver injury?
The pre-approval clinical phases of drug development represent a key arena for
identification of hepatotoxic potential. At this stage drugs with significant toxic
potential are easily recognized but those with low toxic potential may be less easily
recognized, particularly if identification of overt (symptomatic jaundice) or serious
injury is used as the marker. The rule of threes predicts that to insure not missing
an overt adverse event occurring in 1 per 1000 requires studying 3000 individuals. Thus,
the absence of overt disease in 3000 study patients (typical pre-approval cohort) does not
prove it will not occur and only predicts an incidence of overt disease of less than 1 per
1000 and life threatening disease of less than 1 per 10,000. Furthermore, if the adverse
reaction is of the delayed idiosyncratic type, the clinical trials may have included a far
smaller number of subjects at risk for sufficient duration. Furthermore, the frequency of
testing and rules for stopping may confound the identification of a significant signal.
Despite the low incidence of over liver injury, less severe injury may be found more
frequently and constitute a possible or probable indicator. What then is a significant and
specific signal for concern during the clinical phase of drug development? - increased
incidence of ALT >3X ULN versus matched controls?, ALT > 8-10X ULN?,
hyperbilirubinemia?
The discussions at this conference should lead to the design of an approach to
verifying liver abnormalities in drug development which constitute a possible or probable
signal for concern and what to do with that information with respect to drug approval.
Biographical Sketch
Neil Kaplowitz
Neil Kaplowitz, M.D. is Director and Principal Investigator of the
NIDDK-supported USC Research Center of Liver Diseases, Associate Director and Co-Principal
Investigator of NIAA- supported USC-UCLA Research Center for Alcoholic Liver and
Pancreatic Disease, and Chief of the Division of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases of
the Keck USC School of Medicine. He holds the endowed USC Associates/Thomas Brem
Professorship of Medicine and is also Professor of Physiology & Biophysics and
Molecular Pharmacology & Toxicology.
Dr. Kaplowitz has held a number of important national positions including President of
the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, President of the Western Society
for Clinical Investigation, and Vice Chair for Research of the American Liver Foundation.
He is the recipient of the Middleton Award, the highest research honor given by the
Department of Veteran Affairs, and is a member of the prestigious American Society for
Clinical Investigation and the American Association of Physicians. He has edited several
textbooks on liver diseases and served as associate editor of major medical journals
including Hepatology, Gastroenterology and the American Journal of Physiology. He is
editor of Drug Hepatotoxicity, a new textbook in the final stages of preparation.
Dr. Kaplowitz has trained hundreds of physicians and scores of scientists who work
throughout the world. He has more than 200 publications and is an authority on the
mechanisms of chemical and drug-induced liver injury, the role of oxidative stress and
cell defense mechanisms in the evolution of liver diseases, and the fundamentals of how
the liver functions in the processing of chemicals from import to metabolism to excretion.
He currently is principal investigator of individual research grants from NIDDK and NIAAA
which deal with molecular physiology of organic anion transport and the molecular
pathophysiology of alcohol-induced and toxin-induced liver cell death.
Dr. Kaplowitz received his B.S. (Cum Laude) and M.D. from New York University where he
was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and Alpha Omega Alpha. He trained in internal medicine at
Bellevue and Jacobi Hospitals, in gastroenterology at Cornell University Medical College,
and in research at Rockefeller University. He was a faculty member at the UCLA School of
Medicine for 15 years and has been at USC for the past 11 years.
Back to Top
Post-Marketing:
State of the Art and Issues Defined
Peter K. Honig, MD, MPH
Director, Office of Postmarketing Drug Risk Assesment, FDA
Slide Presentation
Abstract: Acute hepatic injury is one of
the most common forms of pre-clinical and clinical toxicity encountered with drugs.
Fortunately, most drugs with the potential for substantial hepatotoxicity will be
identified during early testing. Yet, pre-approval testing cannot be relied upon to
identify less common drug-related hepatotoxicity because of the recognized and accepted
limitations of the safety database submitted in support of a drug licensing application.
Phase 3 clinical trials are designed, powered, and reviewed to detect relatively common
dose-related adverse drug reactions (ADR) whether or not these are predicted from the
drugs pharmacology. However, a database of several thousand patients, which is
typical of most marketing applications, lacks the power to observe rare adverse reactions
(i.e. those occurring at rate of 1 per 1000 exposures or less). Furthermore, short trial
duration and, in some cases, specific patient selection criteria contribute to the
inability of pre-marketing studies to detect the rare, drug-related adverse events that
may occur when the drug is given to a larger numbers and a broader range of patients
following approval. ADRs with a long induction period will not be detected in brief trials
and adverse reactions resulting from specific interactions with personal characteristics,
concurrent diseases and concomitant drug therapies will not be found. Therefore, it is critically important that new information regarding severe
drug-induced hepatotoxicity appearing postmarketing regarding drug product safety be
collected, analyzed, and acted upon in an expeditious manner. One of the main objectives
of post-marketing safety surveillance is to detect rare adverse events associated with the
use of drugs, to assess the likelihood of a causal relationship of the event to the drug
and, when a drug cause seems likely, estimate the rate of the event. This responsibility
is shared by the regulatory authorities, drug manufacturers and by physicians, whose
timely reports of adverse drug events are the main source of information about rare
adverse effects. The strengths and limitations of the current tools and mechanisms for identifying
signals of serious hepatoxicity of marketed drugs and the methods used to quantify the
population risk and identification of risk factors that may confer individual
susceptibility to drug-induced hepatic injury using population-based resources will be
discussed. Additionally, regulatory considerations in the benefit:risk assessment of drugs that
are identified as hepatotoxic and the strengths and limitations of existing risk
management tools will be highlighted. Finally, knowledge gaps and issues requiring further
research or development will be outlined for further discussion in the conference breakout
groups. These include but are not limited to: 1) development of a standardized
nomenclature and definitions for liver test abnormalities and liver injury, 2) improving
the quality and quantity of voluntary reporting, 3) quantifying the frequency of LFT
abnormalities and evaluating the usefulness of liver monitoring recommendations as a risk
management strategy in preventing drug injury, 4) development of active and sentinel
surveillance strategies for drug-induced liver injury, and 5) development of a nationwide
research proposal to determine mechanisms of individual susceptibility to drug-induced
hepatic injury.
Biographical
Sketch
Peter K. Honig, MD, MPH
Peter K. Honig, MD, MPH is Director of the Office
of Postmarketing Drug Risk Assessment (OPDRA) of the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (CDER) of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). He received his baccalaureate,
medical and public health degrees from Columbia University and is Board Certified in
Internal Medicine and Clinical Pharmacology. He joined FDA/CDER in 1993 as a medical
review officer in the Division of Pulmonary and Allergy Drug Products and served as a
medical team leader before joining OPDRA in 1999. He retains faculty appointments at the
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences and Georgetown University where the
Department of Medicine recognized him for excellence in house staff teaching with the Sol
Katz award. Dr. Honig is the CDER liaison to the Harvard Clinical Investigators training
program and is the FDA representative to the CERTs (Centers for Education and Research in
Therapeutics) Steering Committee. He also represents FDA at the International Conference
on Harmonization (ICH) and the MedDRA Management Board (MSSO). Dr. Honig is a fellow of
the American College of Physicians (FACP) and a Vice-President of the American Society of
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (ASCPT).
Tuesday, February 13, 2001
Current Topics in Hepatology
- How are these problems being addressed in Europe?
Roger Williams, Professor
of Hepatology, Institute of Hepatology, University College, London
- Looking for hepatotoxicity, working up patients, and
assessing causality
James W. Freston, M.D., Ph.D., University of
Connecticut Heath Center, Farmington, CT
- Emerging Trends in Acute Liver Failure in the United States
William M. Lee, MD, University of Texas Southwestern
- Pharmacogenomics: Dangerous drug or susceptible
patient?
Paul B. Watkins, M.D., University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, NC
How are these problems being addressed in Europe?
Roger Williams, Professor of Hepatology,
Institute of Hepatology, University College, London
Slide Presentation
Abstract: The European Agency for Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) established
in 1995 by the European Union, has to some extent supplanted the work of the Medicines
Control Agency in the UK, as well as that of other similar national bodies in assessing
the efficacy and safety of new drugs. The Agency, located in London, offers two routes for
authorisation of medicinal products: 1) the centralised procedure, compulsory for products
derived from biotechnology, requires that at the conclusion of the scientific evaluation
the opinion of the Scientific Committee be transmitted to the Commission to be transferred
into a single market authorisation applying to the whole European Union.; 2) the
decentralised procedure applies to the majority of conventional medicinal products and is
based upon the principle of mutual recognition of national authorisation procedures. An
information network links all partners in the EMEA allowing rapid exchange of reports of
adverse reactions occurring once the drug is marketed. In the UK a further new body - the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) -
came into being on 1 April 1999, to provide patients, health professionals and the public
with authoritative guidance on current best practice in health technology including
medicines. Before licensed new medicinal products can be prescribed on the National Health
Service (NHS), they have to have the blessing of NICE on the basis of cost benefit
analyses of efficacy data. Regarded by many as a rationing device it can certainly delay
the introduction of new agents into NHS prescribing.
Learning Objectives: After hearing this presentation, listeners should be able to
- outline the relationship between the different National Regulatory and Safety agencies
and the European Wide Agency of the European Union;
- identify how the information available throughout Europe is disseminated at national
level;
- describe the main weakness of the system, i.e., the detection and reporting of adverse
drug reactions in the context of hepatotoxicity and the general poor understanding of the
speciality.
Biographical
Sketch
Professor Roger Williams
CBE, MD, FRCP, FRCS, FRCPE, FRACP, FRCPI, FMedSci,
FACP (Hon)
The work of Professor Roger Williams in
clinical liver disease and research has brought him a national and international
reputation and has been marked by Presidencies of both the British and European
Associations for the Study of the Liver in 1983 - 85 and 1983, respectively. He has
published over 1,500 papers, journals and books and has served on 17 editorial boards. The
Liver Unit which he started at Kings College Hospital in 1966 was recognised as an
Institute of Liver Studies by Kings College, London in 1990. Professor Williams has been involved in the work of the British Society of
Gastroenterology over many years. He has given the Sir Arthur Hurst Memorial Lecture and
was President of the Society from 1990 - 91. At the Royal College of Physicians he has
been Goulstonian Lecturer and was Second Vice-President from 1991 - 1993. Other honorary
positions include the Presidency of the Harveian Society of London 1974-75 and the
Chairmanship of the International Medical Club, 1990 to 1993. He has been Honorary
Consultant Physician in Medicine to the Army since 1988. Professor Williams has received a number of prizes including the Legg Award of the
Royal Free Hospital; the Nightingale Prize of the International Federation of Medical and
Biochemical Engineering and most recently, the Gold Medal of the Canadian Liver
Foundation. He was honoured by election as Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons in
recognition of his contribution to development of liver transplantation and has also been
given the Fellowship of the Edinburgh College and that of the Royal College of Physicians
of Australasia. In 1992 he was made a Fellow of Kings College, London, and in that
year was also awarded an Honorary Fellowship of the American College of Physicians. He was
appointed a CBE in the Queens Birthday Honours list of 1993, and the title of
Professor of Hepatology was conferred by the University of London in May 1994.
Since 1 October 1996, Professor Williams continues his commitment to hepatology as
Director of the new Institute of Hepatology at University College London and Honorary
Consultant Physician in Medicine at UCL Hospitals Trust. Professor Williams aim is
to make the Institute, which has been established by the Liver Research Trust, a centre of
excellence in the UK and to forge links with other liver centres around the world in areas
of work including virus-induced liver disease, auto-immune liver disorders, gene therapy,
novel therapeutic agents and bio-artificial liver support devices.
Back to Top
Looking for
hepatotoxicity, working up patients, and assessing causality
James W. Freston, M.D., Ph.D.
University of Connecticut Heath Center, Farmington, CT
Slide Presentation
The best time to look seriously for evidence of hepatotoxicity is in Phase
II and III clinical trials. The setting is optimal for obtaining the data necessary to
establish the clinical profile of the reaction and to determine causality with better
precision than is ordinarily the case after the drug is approved. Of course, uncommon
idiosyncratic reactions can usually be detected only after the drug is used broadly in the
population. In designing clinical trials of new drugs, sponsors and investigators often
face the issue of excluding or including patients with abnormal LFTs. Subject with severe
liver disease usually are excluded. However, subjects with mild LFT elevations, for
example, ALT values less than 2-3 times the upper limit of normal, should be included.
This will enable the trial results to be applicable to the general populations, about 2 %
of which harbor such abnormalities, usually due to ethanol use, hepatitis C and, possibly,
NASH. Such patients are not at increased risk of suffering idiosyncratic drug reactions,
although their hepatic response to an idiosyncratic reaction may be exaggerated. While
they may be more susceptible to dose-related hepatic reactions, such are usually
reversible upon discontinuation of the drug, and there is a large margin between these
mild abnormalities and those associated with hepatocellular reactions that result in
hyperbilirubinemia, a prolonged INR and other clinical indicators of severe hepatic
dysfunction. Trial protocols must, of course, provide for LFT measurements at intervals
that are sufficiently frequent to detect significant increases in LFTs before serious
hepatic dysfunction has occurred. There also is value in determining if mild liver
abnormalities worsen or improve during drug therapy. Improvements might occur, for
example, in diabetics with NASH when they are treated with an experimental drug that
improves glucose control. This may have been the case in clinical trials of rosiglitazone
and pioglitazone, although the appropriate tests were not done to determine if the
improvements in mild LFT abnormalities were due to improvements in NASH. Such studies are
underway, which may not have been the case if patients with abnormal LFTs had been
excluded from the large Phase III trials, thereby obviating the opportunity to document
improved LFTs with improved glucose control. Thus, by including subjects with mild LFT
abnormalities in trials, other potential benefits of a drug can be uncovered and more
precise labeling can be developed to aid clinicians in optimizing the drugs benefits
and reducing its risks.
Detecting hepatic abnormalities at an early stage and assessing their causality
appropriately are challenging. Data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) are increasingly used
in non-hepatology fields, particularly cardiology. DSMBs typically consist of experts in
clinical medicine, biostatistics and epidemiology, operate independently from the sponsor,
and provide interim reviews of accumulating safety data. Properly organized and
functioning, they define in advance statistically valid study discontinuation rules,
detect serious safety issues, and provide feedback to the sponsor about a range of areas
of concern, including reasons for slow patient accrual, excessive dropouts, and
non-compliance with protocols. DSMBs and more informal safety assessment committees can
also assess causation. This requires the consistent application of a validated system for
determining if the observed hepatic reaction was likely due to the test drug. The pattern
of abnormal LFTs should be determined, e.g. hepatocellular, cholestatic, or mixed. The
severity should be assessed, e.g. mild, moderate, severe, and causality assessed, usually
on the basis of temporal exposure, lack of confounding causes, and positive dechallenge.
The value of this assessment is critically dependent on a supply of accurate data, which
often requires access to the clinician/investigator and the opportunity obtain follow up
tests. This is facilitated if the protocols include specific language about steps to take
at the study site when LFT abnormalities of a certain type and severity are detected.
Typically, hepatitis serologies and a hepatocellular ultrasound exam should be obtained
immediately upon confirmation of LFT rises beyond the limits specified in the protocol.
The LFTs should be followed after drug discontinuation until they return to normal. If
they are abnormal after 3-6 months, an evaluation for chronic liver disease should be
undertaken to include serum protein electropheresis, if not already obtained, antinuclear
antibody titer, and LKM antibody. Liver biopsy should also be obtained to better assess
the cause and nature of the liver reaction.
Even the best of detection and assessment methodologies commonly fail to establish
causality, but at least the observed reactions can be categorized according to
probability, e.g. definitely related, probably related, possibly related, probably not
related, definitely related. In comparative trials this approach should distinguish
between the study drug and the comparator in terms of the frequency of reactions. The
approach is also useful in the absence of a comparator group although it may be
exceedingly difficult to separate a drug effect from other causes operating in the
background in a given population, e.g. diabetics, patients with congestive heart failure.
Learning Objectives: after hearing this presentatiom, listeners should be able to
- describe the rationale for
including patients with mildly abnormal serum tests of liver function or injury in
clinical trials;
- outline a cost-effective and ethically acceptable program for
assessing causality;
- apply a methodology for establishing causality.
Biographical Sketch
James W. Freston, M.D., Ph.D.
Dr. Freston is Professor of Medicine (Gastroenterology), Boehringer Ingelheim Chair of
Clinical Pharmacology, and Director of Clinical Research Programs at The University of
Connecticut Health Center in Farmington, Connecticut. He was Chairman of the Department of
Medicine at the University of Connecticut from 1980 to 1997, a position he relinquished to
direct the health Centers clinical research programs, which include an NIH-sponsored
General Clinical Research Center, a Clinical Trials Office, and investigator training and
education services.
Formerly, Dr. Freston was Professor of Medicine and Pharmacology at the University of
Utah, where he won the Outstanding Professor Award 6 times, and directed the
Gastroenterology and Clinical Pharmacology Divisions.
Dr. Freston is Chairman of the American Digestive Health Foundation and Past President
of the American Gastroenterology Association. He was consultant to the Surgeon General for
gastrointestinal section of The Health Consequences of Smoking and a member of two FDA
Gastrointestinal Advisory Panels, as well as numerous NIH panels and committees. He is
internationally recognized for his expertise in the clinical pharmacology of
gastrointestinal drugs and diseases, particularly the acid-related disorders. He has
lectured worldwide and is the author of over 100 peer-reviewed journal articles and 35
books and chapters. He has served as a member of the editorial boards of several journals,
including Annals of Internal Medicine, Practical Gastroenterology, Clinical Advances in
Gastroenterology, and The Journal of Drug Development.
Dr. Freston received his M.D. degree from the University of Utah and his Ph.D. degree
from the University of London.
Back to Top
Emerging Trends
in Acute Liver Failure in the United States
William M. Lee, MD
University of Texas Southwestern
Slide Presentation
Abstract: Acute liver failure (ALF) is a rare condition in which a
variety of agents cause severe and sudden liver cell dysfunction. Sometimes termed
fulminant hepatic failure, ALF is thought to affect about 2,000 in the U.S. per year. This
overwhelming catastrophe leads to coma, multi-organ dysfunction, and death, primarily
affecting young and previously healthy people. Over the past 30 years, the most frequent
causes of ALF worldwide have been viral hepatitis, and drug-induced liver injury, with
smaller numbers of cases due to a variety of etiologies. Until recently, little data have
been available on ALF in the United States, the relative rarity of cases and lower
population density in the U.S. limiting clinical studies. The ALF Study Group was formed
in 1997 as a consortium of centers with experience in ALF from around the United States.
The current report describes in detail the demographic profile, clinical features and
outcome of patients developing ALF in the U.S. between 1998 and 2000, based on data
collected prospectively by the ALF Study Group. Between January 1998 and October 2000, 258
patients were enrolled from 17 academic liver units around the United States. To be
admitted to the study, patients met standard entry criteria for acute liver failure, i.e.,
coagulopathy (PT > 15 seconds or INR 1.5) and hepatic encephalopathy within 8 weeks of
the first symptoms or jaundice without previous underlying liver disease.
Of the 258 patients, 190 (74%) were female. The reasons for the
preponderance of women in this series have not been elucidated, as the underlying
etiologies encountered do not share a female preponderance. Whether genetic or hormonal
differences are important has not been explored. The impact of drug hepatotoxicity is
exemplified by the finding that ALF due to acetaminophen or due to idiosyncratic drug
reactions accounted for 52% of the total. Acetaminophen (ACM) poisoning was the most
common cause of ALF, accounting for 98 (38%) cases. Although 79% of the ACM group were
women, similar percentages were seen for the idiosyncratic drug reactions (74%) and for
other causes of ALF. A dose-related toxin, acetaminophen is the single most common
etiology for ALF in the U.S., Europe and Australia, although acetaminophen is rarely
implicated in Asia. Only 12% of acetaminophen-related hospital admissions reach the
threshold of developing symptoms of ALF, suggesting that the 98 cases observed in this
study represent only a small fraction of the acetaminophen burden. The proportion of
accidental cases in the present series was 60%% while 38% were thought to be overt
suicidal ingestions. Accidental toxicity due to acetaminophen occurs when patients consume
large amounts of drug over several days seeking pain relief, without realizing its
possible harmful effects. Acetaminophen intoxication represents an acute event limited to
a single-time-point ingestion or to a brief interval of exposure. As a result, ALT levels
are extraordinarily high, bilirubin levels low and evidence of acute renal insufficiency
and acidosis characterize the most severe cases, whose severity in terms of coma grade on
admission equals that of other forms of ALF. Remarkably, these patients have a high
spontaneous survival, perhaps attributable to the brevity of their drug exposure.
Idiosyncratic drug reactions were responsible for another 35 (14%) cases, and included
cases of troglitazone (4), bromfenac (4) and isoniazid (5). By comparison with the ACM
cases, idiosyncratic reactions are characterized by slower onset, lower ALT, higher
bilirubin levels, normal renal function but much poorer spontaneous survival. Hepatitis A
and B caused 11 (4%) and 21 (8%) cases respectively. Seventy-three (28%) patients
underwent hepatic transplantation, 61 of whom survived (84% short-term survival). One
hundred and twelve (43%) patients survived without transplantation (spontaneous
survivors). Seventy-three (28%) patients died without transplantation. Overall survival in
the group was 67%. Only 6% of acetaminophen patients were transplanted, 69% surviving
spontaneously, while 25 died without receiving a liver graft. By contrast, 54% of the
idiosyncratic group received a transplant, 20% died and 26% recovered spontaneously.
Drug-induced liver injury leading to acute liver failure accounts for
52% of all acute liver failure in the U.S. and is a disease of the developed world, since
virtually no cases are found in developing countries. As such, developed nations should be
able to institute preventive measures for this newly evolving crisis. With regard to
acetaminophen, limitation of package size and better patient and physician education might
help alleviate this burgeoning health problem.
Biographical Sketch
William M. Lee, MD
Professor of Internal Medicine and Director, Clinical Center for Liver Disease
University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas.
Dr. Lee was educated at Amherst College and received his medical degree
from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, completing his training in
Internal Medicine at the Presbyterian Hospital, New York City (Columbia-Presbyterian
Medical Center). He served as Honorary Registrar and Research Fellow to Dr. Roger Williams
at the Liver Unit, Kings College Hospital, London from 1973-74, then was on the faculty of
Columbia-Presbyterian until 1980. In that year, he became an Associate Professor and
later, Professor and Chief of the Division of Gastroenterology at the Medical University
of South Carolina, Charleston, SC between 1980 and 1990. Since his arrival at UT
Southwestern in 1990, he has continued to do clinical and basic research. Four review
articles in the New England Journal of Medicine define his main areas of research and
clinical interest: The Extra-Cellular Actin-Scavenger System, 1992, Acute Liver Failure
1993, Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity 1995, Hepatitis B Virus Infection 1997.
The Clinical Center at UT Southwestern is the largest site in Texas
performing viral hepatitis clinical trials (9 on payroll, 22 active protocols). Dr. Lee
serves as one of 10 principal investigators in the HALT-C study sponsored by the NIDDK, an
8 year study to determine the safety and efficacy of long-term interferon therapy for
hepatitis C non-responder patients. He is the principal investigator for the Acute Liver
Failure Study Group comprising 39 sites around the U.S. sponsored by the NIDDK.
Back to Top
Pharmacogenomics: Dangerous drug or
susceptible patient?
Paul B. Watkins, M.D.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC 27599
Slide Presentation
The rapid application of pharmacogenomics to drug discovery will have many implications
for the future of the pharmaceutical industry, including development of drugs that will
work optimally only in subsets of patients with a given disease. To identify responders,
molecular diagnostic testing will need to become standard medical practice. One
anticipated advantage of genotype-tailored medications is that clinical testing could be
limited to those with the appropriate genotype, greatly reducing the sample sizes required
to show efficacy. However, sample size reductions will increase the chance that potential
for serious idiosyncratic toxicity, such as irreversible liver injury, will go
unrecognized during clinical development. There is, therefore, increasing urgency to
understand the molecular basis for drug induced liver injury, particularly irreversible
idiosyncratic injury.
The number of genes potentially involved in idiosyncratic severe liver injury due to
drugs is very large and involve many pathways. One approach taken to identify these genes
has been to collect genomic DNA from patients experiencing serum alanine aminotransferase
(ALT) elevations during clinical trials. The DNA is then screened for known mutations in
potentially relevant genes, or subjected to "shot gun" screening for single
nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The mutation frequencies found in the patients
experiencing ALT elevation are then compared to the corresponding frequencies found in
patients who did not manifest ALT elevations. This line of research should allow
development of molecular diagnostic tests that could be used to exclude from treatment
most patients susceptible to ALT elevations. This practice would obviate the need for
routine ALT monitoring of all treated patients and, based on current thinking, would be
expected to generally reduce the incidence of severe idiosyncratic liver injury. However,
the insight obtained into the basis for severe idiosyncratic liver injury will be limited
because only a very small subset of patients manifesting ALT elevations generally go on to
develop progressive liver injury, even with continued administration of the drug. This
subset can generally not be identified in clinical trials since treatment is usually
promptly discontinued in patients experiencing ALT elevations. There is now a pressing
need for development of a bank of tissue and genomic DNA obtained from patients who have
experienced well-documented severe adverse reactions to specific medications. Such a bank
would serve as a critical resource for all researchers in this area.
Learning Objectives:
- The number of genes potentially involved in idiosyncratic severe liver reactions to
drugs is very large and involve many pathways.
- Current efforts to associate genetic mutations with ALT elevations observed in clinical
trials will probably provide limited insight in the mechanisms underlying idiosyncratic
liver injury.
- There is an urgent need to establish a bank of tissue and genomic DNA obtained from
patients who have experienced severe liver injury due to drugs.
Biographical Sketch
Paul B. Watkins
Paul B. Watkins is the Verne S. Caviness Distinguished Professor of Medicine and
Professor of Pharmacotherapy at the University of North Carolina. He also directs the
General Clinical Research Center there. His research has focused on the molecular basis
for interindividual differences in drug disposition, particularly as involves cytochromes
P450 and drug transporters present in human liver and intestine. Dr. Watkins is also a
hepatologist and has consulted widely in both industry and government on issues involving
drug-induced liver disease. He is the recipient of the 1998 Therapeutic Frontiers Award
from the American College of Clinical Pharmacy and he is a recent recipient of a MERIT
award from the National Institutes of Health.
Back to Top Back to Livertox main
PDF requires the free Adobe Acrobat Reader
Date updated: April 8, 2008 |
|