PhRMA survey of pharmacogenomic and pharmacodynamic evaluations: what next?

Interindividual variation in pharmacodynamic (PD) response to drugs is an ongoing area of research for drugs in clinical development, pre- and postapproval. To characterize how pharmacogenomic (PG ) variations can serves a predictor of differences in PD outcomes, the pharmaceutical industry has incorporated PG /PD analysis into clinical drug development. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA ) and the Industry Pharmacogenomics Working Group (I-PWG) conducted a survey of 16 pharmaceutical companies to ascertain to what extent PG/PD research is being incorporated into drug development. The survey results showed that, while the industry has made some attempt to incorporate PG/PD studies into drug development, application has been inconsistent. Nevertheless, several valid PG/PD markers have since emerged in drug labels. The I-PWG considers PG/PD research an important approach to improving success rates in drug development. This article reports the results of the survey and proposes steps toward increasing the use of PG/PD research by the industry.

Current practices for DNA sample collection and storage in the pharmaceutical industry, and potential areas for harmonization: perspective of the I-PWG.

Collection and storage of DNA samples in clinical drug development programs are an important investment for the pharmaceutical industry to allow efficient evaluation of observed variability in drug response. To enable collection and future use of samples, individual companies must define (i) processes to collect specimens worldwide, (ii) whether collection is optional or mandatory, (iii) conditions and duration of sample storage, (iv) whether research data can be returned to subjects, and (v) other logistical aspects. To determine current industry practices for collection and storage of these samples, the Industry Pharmacogenomics Working Group (I-PWG) conducted a survey of the industry (21 respondents) to identify areas of commonality and divergence. On the basis of the survey results, the I-PWG details areas of focus for harmonization of the industry's sample collection practices. A more unified approach would facilitate DNA sample collection, thereby contributing to the advancement of personalized medicine and more efficient development of safe and effective drugs.

Coding of DNA samples and data in the pharmaceutical industry: current practices and future directions--perspective of the I-PWG.

DNA samples collected in clinical trials and stored for future research are valuable to pharmaceutical drug development. Given the perceived higher risk associated with genetic research, industry has implemented complex coding methods for DNA. Following years of experience with these methods and with addressing questions from institutional review boards (IRBs), ethics committees (ECs) and health authorities, the industry has started reexamining the extent of the added value offered by these methods. With the goal of harmonization, the Industry Pharmacogenomics Working Group (I-PWG) conducted a survey to gain an understanding of company practices for DNA coding and to solicit opinions on their effectiveness at protecting privacy. The results of the survey and the limitations of the coding methods are described. The I-PWG recommends dialogue with key stakeholders regarding coding practices such that equal standards are applied to DNA and non-DNA samples. The I-PWG believes that industry standards for privacy protection should provide adequate safeguards for DNA and non-DNA samples/data and suggests a need for more universal standards for samples stored for future research.

Challenges in obtaining adequate genetic sample sets in clinical trials: the perspective of the industry pharmacogenomics working group.

Collection of DNA samples from subjects participating in clinical trials is vital to understanding variability in drug response. The purpose of this study was to assess pharmacogenetic sample-collection practices in the industry and to gather information on issues affecting collection. A survey questionnaire was developed and distributed to 20 pharmaceutical companies; 15 provided responses. Assessments included rate of DNA sample collection, reasons for low collection rates, reasons for rejection by health authorities (HAs) and institutional review boards/ethics committees (IRBs/ECs), and country-specific hurdles to sample collection. The results indicated that, although DNA samples are frequently collected, sample-acquisition rates remain lower than expected. Overall, the companies' experience has been that restrictions on sample usage are not consistently applied by regulatory bodies. This may reflect changing opinions/interpretations of HAs/IRBs/ECs. Collection of DNA samples in industry trials is still a challenge. Harmonization of sample-collection practices may facilitate the process.

Persistent, low-dose 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin exposure: effect on aryl hydrocarbon receptor expression in a dioxin-resistance model.

Most toxic effects of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) are mediated by the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR). A single, acute dose of TCDD can alter its own receptor levels thus complicating evaluation of dose-response relationships for AHR-mediated events. Since environmental exposure to dioxins is typically of a repeated low-dose nature, we examined the effect of such exposure on AHR expression. Three rat strains differing greatly in their sensitivity to acute TCDD lethality, Long-Evans (Turku AB) (L-E) (LD50 approximately 10 microg/kg); Sprague Dawley (SD) (LD50 approximately 50 microg/kg); and Han/Wistar (Kuopio) (H/W) (LD50 > 9600 microg/kg), were administered TCDD intragastrically, biweekly for 22 weeks producing doses equivalent to 0, 10, 30, and 100 ng/kg/day. Changes in hepatic AHR levels were quantitated at the protein level by radioligand binding and immunoblotting and at the mRNA level by RT-PCR. Cytosolic AHR protein was elevated at 10 or 30 ng/kg/day TCDD in SD and L-E rats; AHR mRNA was also elevated at these doses, suggesting a pretranslational mechanism. There was no apparent relationship between TCDD-induced AHR regulation and strain sensitivity to TCDD. Overall, "subchronic" TCDD did not greatly perturb AHR expression. The maintenance of relatively constant receptor levels in the face of persistent agonist stimulation is in contrast to the sustained depletion of AHR by TCDD observed in cell culture and to the fluctuations in AHR observed hours to days following acute TCDD exposure in vivo. Changes in AHR levels may affect dose-response relationships; the effect of TCDD on its own receptor at environmentally relevant dosing schemes is therefore important to risk assessment.

In vivo up-regulation of aryl hydrocarbon receptor expression by 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in a dioxin-resistant rat model.

The aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR) mediates toxicity of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and regulates expression of several genes such as CYP1A1. Little is known about what regulates expression of the AHR itself. We tested the ability of TCDD to alter in vivo expression of its own receptor in rat strains that are susceptible to TCDD lethality [Long-Evans (Turku AB) (L-E) and Sprague Dawley (SD)] and in a rat strain that is remarkably resistant to TCDD lethality [Han/Wistar (Kuopio) (H/W)]. Rats were administered a single, intragastric dose of 5 or 50 microg/kg of TCDD. Hepatic cytosol, nuclear extract, and RNA were prepared at 1, 4, and 10 days after TCDD exposure. AHR expression was assessed at three levels: ligand binding function, immunoreactive protein and mRNA. TCDD at 5 microg/kg produced a 2- to 3-fold increase in cytosolic AHR in all strains; 50 microg/kg produced depletion at day 1 followed by recovery in SD and H/W but not L-E rats. Both the increase in AHR above basal levels and the recovery from initial depletion were accompanied by elevations in steady-state AHR mRNA, suggesting a pre-translational mechanism for AHR regulation by its own ligand. This up-regulation in vivo is in contrast to the sustained depletion of AHR caused by TCDD in cell culture. There was no clear relationship between AHR regulation and strain sensitivity; thus, the large inherent strain differences in susceptibility to TCDD lethality probably are not explained by differential regulation of AHR by TCDD.

Physicochemical differences in the AH receptors of the most TCDD-susceptible and the most TCDD-resistant rat strains.

Long-Evans rats (strain Turku AB; L-E) are at least 1000-fold more sensitive (LD50 about 10 microg/kg) to the acute lethal effects of 2, 3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) than are Han/Wistar (Kuopio; H/W) rats (LD50 > 9600 microg/kg). The AH receptor (AHR) is believed to mediate the toxic effects of TCDD and related halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons. We compared the AHRs of L-E and H/W rats to determine if there were any structural or functional receptor differences that might be related to the dramatic difference in the sensitivity of these two strains to the lethal effects of TCDD. Cytosols from liver and lung of the sensitive L-E rats contained about twofold higher levels of specific binding sites for [3H]TCDD than occurred in H/W rats; the Kd for binding of [3H]TCDD to AHR in hepatic cytosols was similar between the two strains. Addition of the oxyanions, molybdate or tungstate (20 mM), had little effect upon ligand binding to AHR in hepatic cytosols from L-E rats whereas in cytosols from H/W rats these agents substantially diminished or totally abolished TCDD binding. The AHR in H/W cytosols also lost ligand-binding function when NaCl (20 to 400 mM) was added to the buffer whereas, in cytosols from L-E rats, the addition of 400 mM NaCl caused the receptor complex to shift from 9S to 6S during velocity sedimentation but did not destroy ligand binding function. AHR from hepatic cytosol of both the L-E and H/W rats could be transformed to the DNA-binding state in the presence of TCDD or other dioxin congeners as assessed by gel mobility shift assays. The most dramatic difference in AHR properties between L-E and H/W rats is molecular mass. Immunoblotting of cytosolic proteins revealed that the AHR in L-E rats has an apparent mass of approximately 106 kDa, similar to the mass of the receptor previously reported in several other common laboratory rat strains. In contrast, the mass of the AHR in H/W rats is approximately 98 kDa, significantly smaller than the mass of receptor reported in any other rat strains. F1 offspring of a cross between L-E and H/W rats expressed both the 106- and the 98-kDa protein. There was no apparent difference in the mass of the AHR nuclear translocator protein (ARNT) between the two strains, but the hepatic concentration of ARNT was about three times as high in L-E as in H/W rats. It will be interesting to find out how the altered structure of the AHR in H/W rats is related to their remarkable resistance to the lethal effects of TCDD.