Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5441_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
435
different arms and a study was carried out. Analysis of the data mainly depends
upon the withdrawal phase, wherein the anticipated result commonly encompasses
the resurgence of symptoms. The withdrawal phase serves to enhance the statistical
analysis within a predetermined sample size. In a randomized withdrawal design,
the primary objective is to evaluate the effect of an intervention for a particular dura-
tion. An important benet of this approach is to minimize the use of placebo inter-
ventions, as only responders are enrolled in the study. This design ensures more
acceptability among trial participants, thus increasing subject recruitment.
Ultimately, this design stands poised to ascertain whether the ongoing administra-
tion of treatment is imperative or if cessation can be contemplated.
17.4.3.4 Factorial Design
By employing this design, multiple objectives can be achieved in a single trial with
efcacy using minimum and constant sample size. In a 2×2 factorial design, involv-
ing a placebo, patients are subjected to randomization across four distinct groups:
(1) treatment A alongside placebo; (2) treatment B alongside placebo; (3) a combi-
nation of treatments A and B; or (4) a placebo-only scenario without either treat-
ment. Outcomes were analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA),
pitting patients who receive treatment A (groups 1 and 3) against those who do not
(groups 2 and 4). Likewise, a comparison is made between patients receiving treat-
ment B (groups 2 and 3) and those not receiving it (groups 1 and 4) (Nair 2019).
17.4.4 Types ofRandomization inRCTs
17.4.4.1 Stratified Randomization
Stratied randomization is a two-step process in which subjects entering clinical
trials are rst assigned to strata based on their clinical features that may inuence
the outcome of the intervention. Within each stratum, subjects are assigned to inter-
vention based on the randomization. For example, patients over the age of 50years
may not be randomized with patients under 50. Although stratication is mostly
used for RCTs, their signicance in trial and outcome is not fully understood
(Kernan etal. 1999).
17.4.4.2 Block Randomization
Complete randomization may produce uneven sample allocation, for example, ran-
domizing all subjects receiving intervention in a single batch and all the subjects
receiving placebo in another batch. Due to this, both intervention and batch are
confounded, and it became very difcult to analyze the data concerning the treat-
ment. In such kind of scenario, it is not possible to simply adjust the batches and
subjects until they become balanced. This method will remain unreproducible and
contain unintended biases. A structured way is to tackle the problem using block
randomization. The method of block randomization involves different groups of
different sizes exhibiting very minor differences. The initial step involves the cre-
ation of blocks of samples, ensuring proportional representation within each group.
17 Pre-clinical and Clinical Studies, Pharmacovigilance, Pharmacogenomics…
436
For instance, in cases where one group outnumbers the other by a factor of two,
every block would encompass three subjects: one from the smaller group and two
from the larger group (Yang etal. 2019).
17.4.4.3 Cluster Randomization
The typical approach in most clinical trials involves the random assignment of par-
ticipants as individuals to various treatment arms. Yet, there are situations where
individual allocation isn’t feasible or preferable. In these cases, the randomization
occurs at a group level, which is referred to as cluster or group randomization. The
primary units of randomization are groups of participants, which could encompass
entities like general practices or hospital wards. Additionally, periods can also con-
stitute clusters. For instance, segments of time, like weeks within a year, might be
subjected to randomization. This allows for the introduction of an intervention dur-
ing 1 randomly selected week, followed by its withdrawal during another week
designated as the control (Hauck etal. 1991).
17.5 Pharmacogenomics
The concept of pharmacogenomics is based on the fact that different types of popu-
lations have diverse genetic variations across the genome and play an important role
in inuencing individual reactions to medications. The International Conference on
Harmonization has ofcially dened pharmacogenomics as the investigation into
differences within DNA and RNA attributes concerning response to pharmaceutical
drugs. Additionally, pharmacogenetics, within the same framework, is recognized
as the exploration of discrepancies within DNA sequencing in connection to drug
responsiveness (Burt and Dhillon 2013).
The efcacy of drug dosages experienced by certain patients might not translate
uniformly, inevitably leading to either ineffectiveness or the emergence of adverse
drug reactions (ADRs) in others. These ADRs have been identied as a signicant
factor contributing to hospital admissions, as one study demonstrated that they
accounted for 6.5% of all hospitalizations across two major UK medical facilities.
Genomic variation leads to different drug responses and can be divided into phar-
macokinetic and pharmacodynamic variations (Roden etal. 2018).
17.5.1 Pharmacokinetic Gene Variation
Two different scenarios have shown how gene variation between different popula-
tions can affect the efcacy of the drug and ADR. The rst scenario is a prodrug.
Prodrugs must be metabolized into the body and converted into the active form
which exerts pharmacological effects. For example, codeine must be converted into
the morphine by CYP2D6 enzyme, while clopidogrel must be converted into its
bioactive form by CYP2C19 enzymes. It was found that in certain populations,
deciency of CYP2D6 is present as an autosomal recessive trait and classied as
M. Joshi and B. M. Patel
437
poor metabolizers. Due to a lack of CYP2D6, codeine cannot convert into its active
form, and therefore, no analgesic activity was achieved. Many other drugs such as
β-blockers (metoprolol, timolol, propranolol), antiarrhythmic drugs (ecainide,
propafenone), antidepressants (amitriptyline, clomipramine, uoxetine, nortripty-
line), and neuroleptics (perphenazine, haloperidol) cannot be metabolized due to
CYP2D6 deciency, leading to unwanted drug response (Bertilsson etal. 2002).
In the second scenario, gene variation in DNA or RNA may have resulted in an
extremely high effect of the drug which has a narrow therapeutic window. For
example, 6-mercaptopurine, an anticancer drug, is inactivated by two enzymes
TPMT and xanthine oxidase. Changes in TPMT variants may result in the inhibition
of the inactivation of the drug which can cause higher drug concentration in blood
and higher levels of cytotoxic thioguanine nucleotide metabolites resulting in the
incorporation of these metabolites into DNA and association with a drug response
(Relling etal. 2019). Similarly, the toxic effects of 5-uorouracil and other uoro-
pyrimidines such as capecitabine were associated with the loss-of-function of
DYPD variants (Henricks etal. 2018).
17.5.2 Pharmacodynamics Gene Variation
Variations in the pharmacodynamics of the drug can also inuence the drug
response. One study identied that overexpression of wild-type VKORC1 is
involved in increased levels of VKOR activity which causes inhibition of warfarin
activity (Rost etal. 2004). A retrospective study identied at least ve major haplo-
types and ten common noncoding single-nucleotide polymorphisms in VKORC1.
VKORC1 haplotypes were used to stratify the patients in different groups (low-,
intermediate-, and high-dose groups) and showed different dose requirements in
patients with different ancestries (Rieder etal. 2005). Another study revealed a high
prevalence of CYP2C92 (p.R144C), CYP2C93 (p.I359L), and VKORC1 promoter
(g.-1639G/A) polymorphisms in patients classied as “sensitive to warfarin” neces-
sitating less dosages. Conversely, patients exhibiting VKORC1 missense mutations
demonstrated resistance to warfarin, demanding higher doses for efcacy. To com-
pare allele and genotype frequencies of CYP2C9 and VKORC1in a cohort of 260
Ashkenazi (AJ) and 80 Sephardi Jewish (SJ) individuals, Tag-It Mutation Detection
Kit and PCR-RFLP assays were carried out to determine the presence of six
CYP2C9 alleles and eight VKORC1 alleles. The results showed that around 85% of
individuals belonging to the AJ group and approximately 90% of those in the SJ
group possess at least one “sensitive” allele (CYP2C9*2, *3, VKORC1 g.-1639G/A)
or a “resistant” allele (VKORC1 p.D36Y). This suggests a clear divergence in the
warfarin pharmacogenetics between these two groups, highlighting the potential
advantages of dosage predictions based on genotype information for each group
(Rieder etal. 2005).
17 Pre-clinical and Clinical Studies, Pharmacovigilance, Pharmacogenomics…
438
17.5.3 Pharmacogenomics andDiagnosis
Before applying pharmacogenomics to hospital setup, genetic testing must comply
with certain parameters encompassing their analytical and clinical efcacy and
accuracy. Establishing accurate genetic tests presents a complex challenge, particu-
larly when applied to pharmacogenes such as CYP2D6. This complexity arises
from the susceptibility of the gene to inherent variations in copy number within the
germline, along with the intricate emergence of hybrid gene fusions, both of which
pose difculties in terms of accurate measurement and accurate interpretation.
Dimension of clinical effectiveness encompasses a twofold assessment: rstly,
the determination of whether the employment of the genetic test directly contributes
to enhanced health outcomes in subjects undergoing testing and, secondly, an evalu-
ation of the potential risks arising from the testing process. The matter of precisely
which outcomes signify clinical efcacy is an area marked by signicant divergence
in viewpoints. Certain investigations have expanded their purview to encompass the
broader impact of testing on the entire healthcare ecosystem. This includes a com-
parative analysis of the expenses linked with genetic testing against alternative
healthcare interventions, alongside an exploration of how such testing can inuence
the conduct of healthcare.
Multiple factors are taken into consideration regarding the analytical and clinical
effectiveness and validation of a pharmacogenomic test. This substantiation further
justies its implementation in writing medication prescriptions. The determination
of analytical validity highly depends upon the quality of genetic test data and the
operational performance attributes of the test, containing both positive and negative
predictive values. Data received from various sources can be employed to appraise
both validity and clinical use. This contains the extent to which genetic variation
impacts the effectiveness of drugs, deduced from retrospective studies. Furthermore,
the pathways through which this genetic phenotype affects the efcacy of drugs, or
a pertinent endophenotype (an intermediary phenotype like drug-metabolizing
enzyme activity), can also be enlisted for assessment.
A pivotal aspect to consider in evaluating the practicality of interaction between
drug and gene lies in the presence of an alternative therapeutic option, which, to
some extent, hinges on the underlying mechanism of the gene-drug linkage. In
instances where the gene’s inuence pertains to a drug’s pharmacokinetics (as seen
in the case of CYP3A5-mediated breakdown of the immunosuppressive drug tacro-
limus), substantial documented evidence might endorse dose adjustments analo-
gous to those based on factors like age or kidney/liver function. This is especially
justiable when the drug’s blood concentration can be conveniently monitored, as is
the case with therapeutic drug monitoring (Crews etal. 2014).
Decisions to adjust dosages become particularly defensible if genetic tests sug-
gest ineffectiveness or potential adverse reactions specic to a certain genotype.
Recommendations for alternative therapies in such situations depend on weighing
the evidence for both the efcacy and potential toxicity of the substitute. For
instance, individuals homozygous for nonfunctional CYP2D6 alleles cannot con-
vert the analgesic drug codeine into its active form, morphine, yet they can respond
M. Joshi and B. M. Patel
439
to various other opiate analgesics. In scenarios where genetic tests show a notably
elevated risk of a severe adverse event—such as carriers of the HLA-B*57:01 allele
being highly susceptible to hypersensitivity reactions with the antiretroviral drug
abacavir—the alternate therapy must be equally effective while carrying an accept-
able risk of adverse effects, which might be inuenced by other genetic variations
or not (Relling and Evans 2015; Mallal etal. 2008).
17.5.4 Implementation inaClinical Setup
The primary reason for difculties in adopting pharmacogenomics in a clinical
setup is the lack of proper guidelines regarding the practicality of gene variations in
a clinical setup. Many healthcare professionals, regulatory bodies, and healthcare
societies remain in dilemma regarding the use of pharmacogenetic testing and, if so,
how. Examples include clinical use of warfarin and clopidogrel.
17.6 Commercialization ofPharmaceutical Products
The nal part of drug development is the commercialization of drugs into the mar-
ket. Regarding the target audience of pharmaceutical drugs, the company targets
medical professionals who can prescribe drugs to patients and the targeted patient
group who can choose to take drugs. To achieve success with a new drug, compa-
nies have to make strategies to target potential medical professionals and patients.
This could encompass a diverse range of considerations, spanning from strategizing
product launches and ensuring logistical and operational preparedness to navigating
the impact of payer preferences. While the specics might differ among pharmaceu-
tical companies, the general drug development and commercialization journey usu-
ally adheres to two main phases: the pre-launch strategies and the post-launch
strategies.
During the pre-launch strategy, the main focus for commercialization of the drug
revolves around securing market entry. Following the FDA’s approval, manufactur-
ers must start shaping their brand image and communication approaches, pinpoint-
ing the distinctive value their product offers. This phase typically spans 1–2years
and necessitates harmonizing a multitude of viewpoints from diverse stakeholders.
Naturally, a brand must formulate distinct strategies to engage payers, healthcare
providers, and patients.
Once the product is introduced, building awareness becomes paramount. The
effort initiated through patient support initiatives must persist, carried forward by
continual education for healthcare providers and patients, coupled with strategic
marketing campaigns. This endeavor gains signicant traction for pharmaceutical
rms that can assemble a versatile team comprising indispensable stakeholders.
Presently, much of this endeavor is centered around digital avenues. The majority of
pharmaceutical enterprises are transitioning to a digital-rst approach to introduc-
ing new drugs. This approach capitalizes on insights gleaned from valuable data,
17 Pre-clinical and Clinical Studies, Pharmacovigilance, Pharmacogenomics…
440
facilitating well-informed decision-making. However, launch events have made a
resurgence. Meticulously planned events offer additional avenues to establish and
nurture connections with eld representatives, who in turn offer valuable insights
regarding messaging strategies.
The progression of pharmaceutical innovation plays a vital role in ushering novel
therapies to individuals in need. This journey comprises numerous phases, each
demanding meticulous forethought and implementation, coupled with adherence to
stipulated regulatory prerequisites and benchmarks for quality control. Despite the
intricate and protracted nature of this expedition, the potential dividends of intro-
ducing a fresh pharmaceutical to the market are momentous. These rewards encom-
pass enhanced patient prognoses, an elevated standard of living, and a curtailment
of medical expenditure adopting a methodical sequence for pharmaceutical innova-
tion; drug manufacturers can be instrumental in guaranteeing that patients gain
access to treatments that are both secure and efcacious, tailor-made to address
their medical requisites. As the pipeline of groundbreaking pharmaceuticals contin-
ues to burgeon, the process of pharmaceutical innovation will persist as a corner-
stone of the healthcare domain, playing a pivotal role in furnishing novel remedies
to patients and augmenting global health outcomes (Calfee 2002).
17.7 Conclusions
The process of uncovering, crafting, and producing effective molecules targeted at
established objectives, guided by thorough clinical and nonclinical investigations,
will ultimately culminate in a submission package seeking regulatory endorsement.
When strategizing a developmental regimen, it is of utmost signicance to ascertain
whether the planned studies will fulll the stipulated regulatory prerequisites for
assessing both safety and efcacy. This approach will facilitate the creation of an
illuminating description for the new medicinal product.
While only a handful of treatments have gained approval for AD, regulatory bod-
ies in the United States and worldwide have been notably proactive in devising
guidelines governing novel pharmaceuticals in this domain. Nonetheless, there
exists the potential scenario wherein a proposed medication operates in a manner
not encompassed by established regulatory directives. In such instances, developers
must engage in collaborative discourse with regulatory authorities to devise a com-
prehensive strategy that honors the proposed mechanism while meeting regulatory
imperatives.
References
Beninger P (2018) Pharmacovigilance: an overview. Clin Ther 40:1991–2004
Bertilsson L, Dahl ML, Dalen P, Al-Shurbaji A (2002) Molecular genetics of CYP2D6: clinical
relevance with focus on psychotropic drugs. Br J Clin Pharmacol 53:111–122
Bruno A, Costantino G, Sartori L, Radi M (2019) The in silico drug discovery toolbox: applica-
tions in lead discovery and optimization. Curr Med Chem 26:3838–3873
M. Joshi and B. M. Patel
441
Burt T, Dhillon S (2013) Pharmacogenomics in early-phase clinical development.
Pharmacogenomics 14:1085–1097
Buschmann J (2013) The OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals and pesticides. Methods
Mol Biol 947:37–56
Cahana A, Romagnioli S (2007) Not all placebos are the same: a debate on the ethics of placebo
use in clinical trials versus clinical practice. J Anesth 21:102–105
Calfee JE (2002) The role of marketing in pharmaceutical research and development.
PharmacoEconomics 20(Suppl 3):77–85
Capula M, Corno C, El Hassouni B, Li Petri G, Arandelovic S, EORTC PAMM Group (2019) A
brief guide to performing pharmacological studies invitro: reections from the EORTC-PAMM
course “preclinical and early-phase clinical pharmacology”. Anticancer Res 39:3413–3418
Cohen SM, Lawson TA (1995) Rodent bladder tumors do not always predict for humans. Cancer
Lett 93:9–16
Crews KR, Gaedigk A, Dunnenberger HM, Leeder JS, Klein TE, Caudle KE, Haidar CE, Shen DD,
Callaghan JT, Sadhasivam S, Prows CA, Kharasch ED, Skaar TC, Clinical Pharmacogenetics
Implementation Consortium (2014) Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium
guidelines for cytochrome P450 2D6 genotype and codeine therapy: 2014 update. Clin
Pharmacol Ther 95:376–382
Eypasch E, Lefering R, Kum CK, Troidl H (1995) Probability of adverse events that have not yet
occurred: a statistical reminder. BMJ 311:619–620
Fielden MR, Kolaja KL (2008) The role of early invivo toxicity testing in drug discovery toxicol-
ogy. Expert Opin Drug Saf 7:107–110
Foddy B (2009) A duty to deceive: placebos in clinical practice. Am J Bioeth 9:4–12
Greaves P, Williams A, Eve M (2004) First dose of potential new medicines to humans: how ani-
mals help. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3:226–236
Gross CJ, Kramer JA (2003) The role of investigative molecular toxicology in early stage drug
development. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2:147–159
Hamburger AW, Salmon SE (1977) Primary bioassay of human tumor stem cells. Science
197:461–463
Hauck WW, Gilliss CL, Donner A, Gortner S (1991) Randomization by cluster. Nurs Res
40:356–358
Henricks LM, Lunenburg C, De Man FM, Meulendijks D, Frederix GWJ, Kienhuis E, Creemers
GJ, Baars A, Dezentje VO, Imholz ALT, Jeurissen FJF, Portielje JEA, Jansen RLH, Hamberg
P, Ten Tije AJ, Droogendijk HJ, Koopman M, Nieboer P, Van De Poel MHW, Mandigers C,
Rosing H, Beijnen JH, Werkhoven EV, Van Kuilenburg ABP, Van Schaik RHN, Mathijssen
RHJ, Swen JJ, Gelderblom H, Cats A, Guchelaar HJ, Schellens JHM (2018) DPYD genotype-
guided dose individualisation of uoropyrimidine therapy in patients with cancer: a prospec-
tive safety analysis. Lancet Oncol 19:1459–1467
Huang W, Percie Du Sert N, Vollert J, Rice ASC (2020) General principles of preclinical study
design. Handb Exp Pharmacol 257:55–69
Hughes JP, Rees S, Kalindjian SB, Philpott KL (2011) Principles of early drug discovery. Br J
Pharmacol 162:1239–1249
Kalaiselvan V, Srivastava S, Singh A, Gupta SK (2019) Pharmacovigilance in India: present sce-
nario and future challenges. Drug Saf 42:339–346
Kavallaris M (2010) Microtubules and resistance to tubulin-binding agents. Nat Rev Cancer
10:194–204
Kernan WN, Viscoli CM, Makuch RW, Brass LM, Horwitz RI (1999) Stratied randomization for
clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol 52:19–26
Kummar S, Rubinstein L, Kinders R, Parchment RE, Gutierrez ME, Murgo AJ, Ji J, Mroczkowski
B, Pickeral OK, Simpson M, Hollingshead M, Yang SX, Helman L, Wiltrout R, Collins J,
Tomaszewski JE, Doroshow JH (2008) Phase 0 clinical trials: conceptions and misconceptions.
Cancer J 14:133–137
Lewis DI (2019) Animal experimentation: implementation and application of the 3Rs. Emerg Top
Life Sci 3:675–679
17 Pre-clinical and Clinical Studies, Pharmacovigilance, Pharmacogenomics…
442
Mallal S, Phillips E, Carosi G, Molina JM, Workman C, Tomazic J, Jagel-Guedes E, Rugina S,
Kozyrev O, Cid JF, Hay P, Nolan D, Hughes S, Hughes A, Ryan S, Fitch N, Thorborn D,
Benbow A, PREDICT-1 Study Team (2008) HLA-B*5701 screening for hypersensitivity to
abacavir. N Engl J Med 358:568–579
Mohs RC, Greig NH (2017) Drug discovery and development: role of basic biological research.
Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 3:651–657
Muglia JJ, Digiovanna JJ (1998) Phase 1 clinical trials. J Cutan Med Surg 2:236–241
Mutlib AE, Gerson RJ, Meunier PC, Haley PJ, Chen H, Gan LS, Davies MH, Gemzik B, Christ
DD, Krahn DF, Markwalder JA, Seitz SP, Robertson RT, Miwa GT (2000) The species-depen-
dent metabolism of efavirenz produces a nephrotoxic glutathione conjugate in rats. Toxicol
Appl Pharmacol 169:102–113
Nair B (2019) Clinical trial designs. Indian Dermatol Online J 10:193–201
Olson H, Betton G, Robinson D, Thomas K, Monro A, Kolaja G, Lilly P, Sanders J, Sipes G,
Bracken W, Dorato M, Van Deun K, Smith P, Berger B, Heller A (2000) Concordance of the
toxicity of pharmaceuticals in humans and in animals. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 32:56–67
Paul D, Sanap G, Shenoy S, Kalyane D, Kalia K, Tekade RK (2021) Articial intelligence in drug
discovery and development. Drug Discov Today 26:80–93
Perego P, Hempel G, Linder S, Bradshaw TD, Larsen AK, Peters GJ, Phillips RM, EORTC PAMM
Group (2018) Cellular pharmacology studies of anticancer agents: recommendations from the
EORTC-PAMM group. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 81:427–441
Phillips RM (2016) Targeting the hypoxic fraction of tumours using hypoxia-activated prodrugs.
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 77:441–457
Relling MV, Evans WE (2015) Pharmacogenomics in the clinic. Nature 526:343–350
Relling MV, Schwab M, Whirl-Carrillo M, Suarez-Kurtz G, Pui CH, Stein CM, Moyer AM, Evans
WE, Klein TE, Antillon-Klussmann FG, Caudle KE, Kato M, Yeoh AEJ, Schmiegelow K,
Yang JJ (2019) Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guideline for thio-
purine dosing based on TPMT and NUDT15 genotypes: 2018 update. Clin Pharmacol Ther
105:1095–1105
Rhim JS, Tsai WP, Chen ZQ, Chen Z, Van Waes C, Burger AM, Lautenberger JA (1998) A human
vascular endothelial cell model to study angiogenesis and tumorigenesis. Carcinogenesis
19:673–681
Rieder MJ, Reiner AP, Gage BF, Nickerson DA, Eby CS, Mcleod HL, Blough DK, Thummel KE,
Veenstra DL, Rettie AE (2005) Effect of VKORC1 haplotypes on transcriptional regulation and
warfarin dose. N Engl J Med 352:2285–2293
Robinson NB, Krieger K, Khan FM, Huffman W, Chang M, Naik A, Yongle R, Hameed I, Krieger
K, Girardi LN, Gaudino M (2019) The current state of animal models in research: a review.
Int J Surg 72:9–13
Roden DM, Van Driest SL, Wells QS, Mosley JD, Denny JC, Peterson JF (2018) Opportunities
and challenges in cardiovascular pharmacogenomics: from discovery to implementation. Circ
Res 122:1176–1190
Roma-Rodrigues C, Mendes R, Baptista PV, Fernandes AR (2019) Targeting tumor microenviron-
ment for cancer therapy. Int J Mol Sci 20:840
Rost S, Fregin A, Ivaskevicius V, Conzelmann E, Hortnagel K, Pelz HJ, Lappegard K, Seifried
E, Scharrer I, Tuddenham EG, Muller CR, Strom TM, Oldenburg J (2004) Mutations in
VKORC1 cause warfarin resistance and multiple coagulation factor deciency type 2. Nature
427:537–541
Schenone M, Dancik V, Wagner BK, Clemons PA (2013) Target identication and mechanism of
action in chemical biology and drug discovery. Nat Chem Biol 9:232–240
Steinmetz KL, Spack EG (2009) The basics of preclinical drug development for neurodegenerative
disease indications. BMC Neurol 9(Suppl 1):S2
Torres-Saavedra PA, Winter KA (2022) An overview of phase 2 clinical trial designs. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 112:22–29
Tsiatis A (1990) Methodological issues in AIDS clinical trials. Intent-to-treat analysis. J Acquir
Immune Dec Syndr (1988) 3(Suppl 2):S120–S123
M. Joshi and B. M. Patel
443
Tsintis P, La Mache E (2004) CIOMS and ICH initiatives in pharmacovigilance and risk manage-
ment: overview and implications. Drug Saf 27:509–517
Umscheid CA, Margolis DJ, Grossman CE (2011) Key concepts of clinical trials: a narrative
review. Postgrad Med 123:194–204
Van Norman GA (2019) Phase II trials in drug development and adaptive trial design. JACC Basic
Transl Sci 4:428–437
Whiteside TL (2008) The tumor microenvironment and its role in promoting tumor growth.
Oncogene 27:5904–5912
Wilcox CM (2008) Exploring the use of the sham design for interventional trials: implications for
endoscopic research. Gastrointest Endosc 67:123–127
Wu KM, Farrelly JG (2006) Preclinical development of new drugs that enhance thyroid hormone
metabolism and clearance: inadequacy of using rats as an animal model for predicting human
risks in an IND and NDA.Am J Ther 13:141–144
Yang HL, Wu XB, Mao C (2019) Block randomization in clinical trials. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue
Za Zhi 53:437–440
Zazzara MB, Palmer K, Vetrano DL, Car A, Onder G (2021) Adverse drug reactions in older
adults: a narrative review of the literature. Eur Geriatr Med 12:463–473
Ziegler CJ, Silverman AP, Lippard SJ (2000) High-throughput synthesis and screening of platinum
drug candidates. J Biol Inorg Chem 5:774–783
17 Pre-clinical and Clinical Studies, Pharmacovigilance, Pharmacogenomics…