Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

First dose of potential new medicines to humans: how animals help

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery volume 3, pages 226–236 (2004)Cite this article

Key Points

  • The aim of a first study of a new drug in humans is to explore in a safe and ethical manner the dose and exposure range that is well tolerated, and, if possible, to identify any dose-limiting adverse events. Achievement of these aims represents a major leap from the laboratory bench to humans. It requires a substantial body of information characterizing the test substance, which can only be derived from animal studies.

  • Despite these activites being regulated by many national and international guidelines, the approach to preclinical studies remains largely empirical. There is a paucity of evidence about the performance of the widely employed preclinical tests in prediction of toxicity in humans. There is a need for much better performance data in this area.

  • The available limited, retrospective evidence indicates that the conventional approach using experimental pharmacology alongside toxicity studies of one month's duration reasonably predicts adverse events in the first human studies. The conventional methods identify more than 90% of toxicities that can be detected in animals.

  • If toxicity studies are shorter than one month, there is a risk of certain organ toxicities being overlooked. However, single studies seem to have the capacity to detect many of the most important potential adverse effects.

  • Data obtained from dog studies are frequently better predictors than data from rodent experiments.

  • Although uncommon, serious idiosyncratic drug reactions involving skin, liver and haemopoiesis — which conventional animal studies usually fail to predict — are major problems in drug development.

Abstract

The need for careful testing of new drugs in animal models before study in humans has been recognised by physicians since the First World War. Now, first human studies on new drugs are subject to detailed government guidelines, which in the European Union are presently being reinforced through the wide-ranging Clinical Trials Directive. However, despite their long history and widespread application, these guidelines are empirical and have been formulated with a paucity of critical scientific evidence. Here, we review the principles and the available, albeit limited, evidence that support the design and conduct of preclinical studies in a way that permits effective and safe first-dose studies of potential new medicines in humans.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Animal and human toxicities of 45 drugs assessed by the Committee on Safety of Medicines in the United Kingdom during the eight or nine months prior to publication in 1978 (Ref. 11).
Figure 2: The dog as a predictor of organ-specific toxicity (n = 25)16.
Figure 3: The monkey as a predictor of organ-specific toxicity (n = 23)16.
Figure 4: Percentage concordance between animal and human toxicities, grouped by organ.
Figure 5: Time to first detection of animal toxicity.
Figure 6: Correlation of lethal dose 10% (LD10) in BDF1 mice with the human maximum tolerated dose for anticancer drugs18.
Figure 7: Prediction by species.

References

  1. Editorial. War chemistry in the alleviation of suffering. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 10, 673–674 (1918).

  2. Leake, C. D. The pharmacologic evaluation of new drugs. JAMA 93, 1632–1634 (1929). Report of an early symposium on the testing of new drugs, which outlines some of the key principles for preclinical and clinical evaluation.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Geiling, E. M. K. & Cannon, P. R. Pathologic effects of elixir of sulphanilamide (diethylene glycol) poisoning. JAMA 111, 919–926 (1938). Detailed report on the effects and cause of death of patients treated with the elixir of sulphanilamide, and the principles that should be adopted for the study of new drugs.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Shuster, E. Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg Code. N. Engl. J. Med. 337, 1436–1440 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Barnes, J. M. Are official recommendations for the testing of drugs for toxicity dangerous? Proc. Eur. Soc. Study Drug Toxicity 2, 57–63 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. (The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, London, 2001).

  7. Schuster, E. The Nuremberg Code: Hippocratic ethics and human rights. Lancet 351, 974–977 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects. JAMA 277, 925–926 (1997).

  9. Lawson, D. H. Adverse drug reactions. Human Toxicol. 4, 122–126 (1985).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Igarashi, T., Nakane, S. & Kitagawa, T. Predictability of clinical adverse reactions of drugs by general pharmacology studies. J. Toxicol. Sci. 20, 77–92 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fletcher, A. P. Drug safety tests and subsequent clinical experience. J. Roy. Soc. Med. 71, 693–696 (1978).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Olson, H. et al. Concordance of the toxicity of pharmaceuticals in humans and animals. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 32, 56–67 (2000). A review of multinational pharmaceutical data and the outcome of a workshop which compared adverse effects of a large series of novel drugs in humans with toxicity in animals.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. Literature survey on the correlation between animal toxicity findings and clinical adverse effects. (Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, Tokyo, 1994).

  14. Prentis, R. A. & Walker, S. R. Trends in the development of new medicines by UK-owned pharmaceutical companies (1964–1980). Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 21, 437–443 (1986).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Lumley, C. In Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man (ed. Walker, S. R.) 49–56 (Quay, Lancaster, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Schein, P. S. et al. The evaluation of anticancer drugs in dogs and monkeys for the prediction of qualitative toxicities in man. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 11, 3–40 (1970). Critical evaluation of the qualitative toxicity of anticancer drugs in dogs and monkeys compared with humans.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Owens, A. H. Predicting anticancer drug effects in man from laboratory animal studies. J. Chron. Dis. 15, 223–228 (1962).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Freireich, E. J., Gehen, E. A., Rall, D. P., Schmidt, L. H. & Skipper, H. E. Quantitative comparison of toxicity of anticancer agents in mouse, rat, hamster, dog, monkey, and man. Cancer Chemother. Reports 50, 219–244 (1966). Highly cited article that provides a quantitative comparison of the toxicity of anticancer drugs in several animal species and humans.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Points to consider in the assessment of the potential for QT interval prolongation by non-cardiovascular medicinal products. (The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, London, 1997).

  20. Crumb, W. & Cavero, I. QT interval prolongation by non-cardiovascular drugs: issues and solutions for novel drug development. Pharm. Sci. Technol. Today 2, 270–280 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. De Ponti, F., Poluzzi, E. & Montanaro, N. QT-interval prolongation by non-cardiac drugs: lessons to be learned from recent experience. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 56, 1–18 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fermini, B. & Fossa, A. A. The impact of drug-induced QT interval prolongation on drug discovery and development. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 439–447 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Davis, A. S. The preclinical assessment of QT interval prolongation: a comparison of in vitro and in vivo methods. Human Exp. Toxicol. 17, 677–680 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Nemery, B., Dinsdale, D. & Verschoyle, R. D. Detecting and evaluating chemical-induced lung damage in experimental animals. Bull. Eur. Physiopathol. Respir . 23, 501–528 (1987).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dressman, J. B. Comparison of canine and human gastrointestinal physiology. Pharmacol. Res. 3, 123–131 (1986).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee, W. M. Drug-induced hepatotoxicity. N. Engl. J. Med. 349, 474–485 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Amacher, D. E. Serum transaminase elevations as indicators of hepatic injury following administration of drugs. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 27, 119–130 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hayes, A. W. et al. Correlation of human hepatotoxicants with hepatic damage in animals. Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 2, 55–66 (1982).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Schwartz, S., Raskin, P., Fonseca, V. & Graveline, J. F. Effect of troglitazone in insulin-treated patients with type II diabetes mellitus. N. Engl. J. Med. 338, 861–866 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mok, C. C., Lau, C. S. & Wong, R. W. S. Risk factors for ovarian failure in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus receiving cyclophosphamide therapy. Arthritis Rheum. 41, 831–837 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Takayama, S., Akaike, M., Kawashima, K., Takahashi, M. & Kurokawa, Y. A collaborative study in Japan on optimal treatment period and parameters for detection of male fertility disorders induced by drugs in rats. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 14, 266–292 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ribelin, W. E. The effects of drugs and chemicals upon the structure of the adrenal gland. Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 4, 105–119 (1984).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Theus, R. & Zbinden, G. Toxicological assessment of the hemostatic system, regulatory requirements, and industry practice. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 4, 74–95 (1984).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dayan, A. D. et al. Report of a validation study of assessment of direct immunotoxicity in the rat. Toxicology 125, 183–201 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Dean, J. H. Issues with introducing new immunotoxicology methods into the safety assessment of pharmaceuticals. Toxicology 119, 95–101 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dean, J. H., Hinks, J. R. & Remander, B. Immunotoxicology assessment in the pharmaceutical industry. Toxicol. Lett. 102–103, 247–255 (1998).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Cavagnaro, J. A. Preclinical safety evaluation of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 1, 469–475 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Lichfield, J. T. Forecasting drug effects in man from studies in laboratory animals. JAMA 177, 104–108 (1961).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Steiness, E., Rasmussen, F., Svendsen, O. & Nielsen, P. A comparative study of serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK) activity in rabbits, pigs and humans after intramuscular injection of local damaging drugs. Acta Pharmacol. Toxicol. 42, 357–364 (1978).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Clive, D. Mutagenicity tests in drug development: interpretation and significance of test results. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 5, 79–100 (1985).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Benigni, R. & Zito, R. Designing safer drugs: (Q)SAR-based identification of mutagens and carcinogens. Curr. Topics Med. Chem. 3, 1289–1300 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Monro, A. & Mehta, D. Are single-dose toxicology studies in animals adequate to support single dose of a new drug in humans? Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 59, 258–264 (1996). Provides the key arguments for testing new drugs in humans based on single-dose toxicity studies in animals.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Choudary, J. et al. Response to Monro and Mehta proposal for use of single-dose toxicity studies to support single-dose studies of new drugs in humans. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 59, 265–267 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Rozman, K. K. & Doull, J. The role of time as a quantifiable variable of toxicity and the experimental conditions when Haber's c x t product can be observed: implications for therapeutics. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 296, 663–668 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Combes, R. D. et al. Early microdose drug studies in human volunteers can minimise animal testing. Proceedings of a workshop organised by volunteers in research and testing. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 19, 1–11 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lappin, G. & Garner, R. C. Big physics, small doses: the use of AMS and PET in human microdosing of development drugs. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 233–240 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Position paper on non-clinical safety studies to support clinical trials with a single microdose. (The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, London, 2003).

  48. Calabrese, E. J. & Baldwin, L. A. Toxicology rethinks its central belief. Nature 421, 691–692 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Monro, A. M. The role of metabolism studies in drug safety evaluation. Drug Dev. Comm. 2, 377–396 (1976).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Jorkasky, D. K. What does the clinician want to know from the toxicologist? Toxicol. Lett. 102–103, 539–543 (1998).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Grieshaber, C. K. & Marsoni, S. Relation of preclinical toxicology to findings in early clinical trials. Cancer Treat. Rep. 70, 65–72 (1986).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Greaves, P. Histopathology of Preclinical Toxicity Studies: Interpretation and Relevance in Drug Safety Evaluation (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Research Council Toxicology Unit, Hodgkin Building, University of Leicester, Lancaster Road, Leicester, LE1 9HN, UK

    Peter Greaves

  2. Marix Drug Development, Rhodfa Marics, Llantrisant, CF72 8UX, UK

    Andrew Williams

  3. Pfizer Clinical Research Unit, Kent and Canterbury Hospital, Ethelbert Road, Canterbury, CT1 3NG, Kent, UK

    Malcolm Eve

Authors
  1. Peter Greaves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Malcolm Eve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Greaves.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Drs Greaves and Eve presently act as consultants for Marix Drug Development Ltd. Dr Greaves receives a pension from AstraZeneca, and has recently consulted for Shire Pharmaceutical Development Ltd, Experimental Pathology Laboratories Inc. and Aventis.

Related links

Related links

FURTHER INFORMATION

European Union Clinical Trials Directive (2001/20/EC)

Guidance Documents, Center for Drugs Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration

Guidelines from the European Union including those of the International Conference on Harmonisation

Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association

Glossary

SULPHANILAMIDE

An old antimicrobial drug that is still occasionally used therapeutically.

GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE

(GLP). This defines a set of rules and criteria for the organizational processes and the conditions under which preclinical safety studies are planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived.

GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE

(GMP). This defines an assurance process that is similar to GLP. It ensures that products are consistently manufactured and controlled to the quality standards that are appropriate to their intended use.

NECROPSY

A detailed post-mortem examination. Also referred to as autopsy.

QT INTERVAL PROLONGATION

Increase in the total time of ventricular polarization as measured from the onset of the Q wave to the end of the T wave on the electrocardiogram of the heart.

IDIOSYNCRATIC RESPONSES

Infrequent adverse responses to drugs that differ from predictable, dose-dependent toxicities. They are characterized by a variable delay or latency period and might cause severe injury and death.

STEATOSIS

A cellular change characterized by an increase in lipid, usually seen as cytoplasmic droplets.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Greaves, P., Williams, A. & Eve, M. First dose of potential new medicines to humans: how animals help. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3, 226–236 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1329

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1329

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing