|
Wednesday,
March 26
7:00am Registration
(Open until
5:30pm)
8:00 Plenary Keynote Introduction
Edward G. Heidig, General Counsel
and Deputy Secretary, Business, Transportation and Housing
Agency
8:10 Risk Diagnosis for Disease
Prevention
C. Thomas Caskey, M.D., F.A.C.P.,
Director and Chief Executive Officer, BrownFoundation
Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Texas Health
Science Center
There are an increasing
number of presymtomatic diagnostic options which include: genetic,
imaging, and analyte technology. Examples of linking a specifi c
diagnostic to a therapeutic decision and FDA approval have fueled
the activity for personalized medicine. It must be appreciated
that diagnostic capacity emerges far more rapidly than an approved
safe therapeutic. Thus the personalized medicine goal has a bottle
neck for broad utility. A strategy of studying approved drugs for
maximal effi cacy is realistic and reasonable toward that goal
since it is estimated that many approved drugs are effective in
less than 50% of patients. These approaches will be discussed.
8:55 Disruption of the Pharmaceutical
Industry: Moving from Products to Solutions
Theodore J. Torphy, Ph.D., Corporate
Vice President & Head, Science & Technology, Johnson
& Johnson
The pharmaceutical
industry is bracing itself for a period of unprecedented
challenges. This new era for our industry is being brought on by
the confluence of several environmental factors, both internal and
external to the industry, including; 1) non-sustainable increases
in healthcare expenditures, 2) spiraling costs and decreasing
productivity of R&D, 3) reimbursement driven by medical and
economic outcomes, and 4) the proliferation and redistribution of
healthcare outcomes information. Although all of these factors
threaten to disrupt our industry, it is the evolving transparency
in healthcare outcomes information that represents the most
unsettling threat to our current business model, as well as the
largest opportunity to transform our industry. For this
transformation to take place, it is imperative that we change from
an industry in which the sole mission is to provide products to
one that provides broader, cost-effective solutions to areas of
major healthcare needs.
9:40 Grand Opening Refreshment Break
in the Exhibit Hall

11:00 Chairperson's Remarks
William B. Mattes, Ph.D., DABT, Director
of Toxicology, The Critical Path Institute (invited)
11:10 Improving R&D Productivity
Through Better Preclinical Decision Making and Science
B. Michael Silber, Ph.D., Senior Vice
President and Head Safety & Technical Sciences (Preclinical
Development), Roche Pharmaceuticals, LLC
We have considered all of
the significant contributors to overall productivity, as measured
by getting a new medicine to registration, regulatory approval and
launch. The major contributors to attrition and survival include
the confidence in rationale (CIR) and confidence in the safety
(CIS) for the target, and CIR and CIS for the compound, impacting
on success in each of the phases of discovery and development.
Development strategies often assume success and build in
significant front-loading and cost, but don稚 take into account
the probability of success. Significant increases in productivity
are possible if flexible strategies to development are adopted
early as opposed to one size fits all, which is the norm. This
includes appropriate preclinical development strategies dependent
on the early Phase I plans in the clinic. We have developed and
applied a simulator-based model to R & D that suggests
significant increases in productivity can be achieved without
increases in budget. We will discuss what this means in
preclinical development, with a focus on alternative strategies
and plans. This approach will require fundamental re-thinking at
senior levels to ensure success for this innovative approach. It
will focus on developing the right package at the appropriate time
to hypothesis testing and proof of concept.
11:55 Toxicity Testing in the 21st
Century: Opportunities for Pharmaceutical Risk Assessment
Daniel Krewski, Ph.D., MHA, Professor
and Director, McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk
Assessment, University of Ottawa
Current approaches to
toxicity testing of environmental agents rely primarily on a
complex array of studies that evaluate adverse effects in intact
animals at high doses. Anticipating the opportunities that will be
provided by recent scientific advances in cell and molecular
biology, genomics, high-throughput robotics, bioinformatics,
computational systems biology, and other disciplines, the National
Research Council 壮 Committee on Toxicity Testing and Assessment
of Environmental Agents developed a long-range vision for toxicity
testing and a strategic plan for implementing that vision. This
vision was designed to (i) develop a more robust scientific basis
for assessing adverse health effects of environmental agents, (ii)
provide broad coverage of chemicals, chemical mixtures, outcomes,
and life stages, and (iii) reduce the cost and time of toxicity
testing. In addition, the process envisioned would greatly reduce
the numbers of animals used in toxicity testing. The main elements
of the vision will be outlined in detail, and the potential
applications of the vision to assessing the potential risks of
pharmaceutical products examined.
12:40pm Technology Spotlight (Sponsorship
Available)
1:10 Walk & Talk Luncheon in the
Exhibit Hall

2:15 Chairperson's Remarks
Joy Cavagnaro, Ph.D., DABT, RAC,
President, Access BIO
2:20 Overview
William B. Mattes, Ph.D., DABT,
Director of Toxicology, The Critical Path Institute
2:40 From Publication to Practice:
Interlaboratory Validation of Microarray and QPCR-based
Signatures for Predicting Carcinogenicity in the Rat
Mark Fielden, Ph.D., DABT, Discovery
and Investigative Safety, Non-Clinical Drug Safety, Roche Palo
Alto LLC
Interlaboratory
evaluation of putative biomarkers is essential for their
validation prior to use, however, the majority of efforts to date
are limited to single publications and/or analytical platforms,
thus limiting their general applicability. Based on hepatic
changes in gene expression, the Carcingenicity Working Group of
the Critical Path Institute has validated biomarkers of non-genotoxic
carcinogens across companies and are working towards developing a
QPCR-based platform for larger deployment and tier 2 validation.
It is anticipated that the interlaboratory validation and widely
accessible platform will provide industry with a valuable tool to
evaluate the potential for molecules to induce tumors in the rat,
thus providing essential information for early human risk
assessment and assist in compound prioritization and selection.
3:00 Mechanistic Cardiac Modeling:
Concepts and Utility in Drug Development
Anna Georgieva, Ph.D., Associate
Director, Modeling & Simulation, and Ruben Bibas, Ph.D.,
Biology Modeler, Modeling & Simulation, Novartis Inc.
Blockade of the delayed rectifier
potassium channel current, I(Kr), has been associated with
drug-induced QT prolongation in the electrocardiogram and
life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias. However, it is increasingly
clear that compound-induced interactions with multiple cardiac ion
channels may significantly affect QT prolongation that would
result from inhibition of only I(Kr). A complete experimental
pre-clinical assessment of the pro-arrhythmic potential of all
drug candidates may not be feasible due to multi-factorial
processes that are also time-dependent and highly non-linear.
Here, we present an example of a systems-based integrative
modeling approach to characterizing risk carried by pharmaceutical
compounds based on limited preclinical data.
3:20 Advances in Liver Toxicity
Testing: What's on the Horizon?
Holly L. Jordan, DVM, PhD, Dipl. ACVP,
Director of Clinical Pathology, Safety Assessment, GlaxoSmithKline
Current approaches to
evaluation of liver injury in drug safety testing rely extensively
on histopathologic and clinicopathologic assessment in preclinical
species. These standard elements successfully predict the
potential for hepatotoxicity in the clinical setting in only about
half of the cases. Through comprehensive, collaborative efforts,
such as the Hepatotoxicity Working Group in the Predictive Safety
Testing Consortium of the Critical Path Institute, a number of
novel preclinical and clinical biomarkers of liver injury have
been proposed and are currently under evaluation worldwide. These
candidate predictive markers are designed to address general
hepatotoxicity or in some cases, very specific types of liver
injury. Modalities under investigation encompass a variety of
technologies, including new and/or modified serum enzyme assays
and gene expression panels with an emphasis on non-invasive or
minimally invasive testing that can be applied to preclinical
species and humans.
3:40 SDAR: Spectrometric Data
Activity Relationship Modeling
Dan Buzatu Ph.D., Research Chemist,
National Center for Toxicological Research, FDA
A brief introduction to a
class of novel and highly accurate modeling methods capable of
predicting chemical and biological properties for substances based
on chemical spectral information. This includes chemical
reactivity, biological activity, and toxicity. The presentation
will include a discussion regarding the fundamental concepts
behind the principle, several examples of published SDAR models,
and advancements to the original technique that increase
predictive accuracy.
3:55 Modeling and Assaying
Dioxin-Like Biological Effects for Both Dioxin-Like and
Certain Non-Dioxin-Like Compounds
Jon Wilkes, Ph.D., Research Chemist,
National Center for Toxicological Research, FDA
Quantitative
spectrometric data-activity relationship (QSDAR) models were used
to correlate 13C NMR data to World Health Organization
Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) of the 29 polychlorinated
dioxin-like compounds (PCDDs, PCDFs, or PCBs) for which non-zero
TEFs have been defined. The best QSDAR models predicted TEFs of
0.037 and 0.004, respectively, for 1,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo--dioxin
(TCDD) and 1,2,3,4,7-pentachlorodibenzo--dioxin (PeCDD),
both of which are among the 390 congeners for which zero value
TEFs are assumed. A QSDAR model of Relative Potency (REP) values
estimated the corresponding values as 0.115 and 0.020. Both models
indicated that these two congeners are likely to exhibit
significant dioxin-like toxicity. We used a luciferase gene
expression in vitro assay based on mouse liver cells to
determine experimental REPs of 0.027 and 0.013, respectively, for
1,3,7,8-TCDD and 1,2,3,4,7-PeCDD. The corresponding QSDAR-estimated
and gene-expression assayed values were in close agreement with
the predicted values demonstrating that SDAR prediction followed
by a relatively inexpensive in vitro assay could be used to
nominate a few candidates among hundreds for expensive in vivo
evaluation.
4:20 Reception in the Exhibit Hall
(Sponsorship
Available)
5:00 - 6:00pm Break-out Discussions in
the Exhibit Hall
|
Carcinogenicity Biomarkers
Moderator: Mark Fielden,
Ph.D., DABT, Discovery and Investigative Safety, Non-Clinical
Drug Safety, Roche Palo Alto LLC
Preclinical Safety Hepatotoxicity Biomarkers
Moderator: Holly L. Jordan,
DVM, Ph.D., Dipl. ACVP, Director of Clinical Pathology, Safety
Assessment, GlaxoSmithKline
Translation of Preclinical Safety
Biomarkers to the Clinic
Moderator: William B. Mattes,
Ph.D., DABT, Director of Toxicology,
The Critical Path Institute
Finding the Relevant Model for Toxicity
Testing of Biopharmaceuticals
Moderator: Mary Haak-Frendscho,
Ph.D., Vice President, Preclinical
Research & Development, XOMA (US) LLC
|
|