1 / 23

FDA Advisory Committee Meeting “Safety Considerations in the Development of Ultrasound Contrast Agents” June 24, 2008

FDA Advisory Committee Meeting “Safety Considerations in the Development of Ultrasound Contrast Agents” June 24, 2008. Nonclinical Development Program: SonoVue ® Patricia D. Williams, PhD Chief Operating Officer Summit Drug Development, LLC Rockville, MD. Pharmacology studies

Angelica
Télécharger la présentation

FDA Advisory Committee Meeting “Safety Considerations in the Development of Ultrasound Contrast Agents” June 24, 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FDA Advisory Committee Meeting“Safety Considerations in the Development of Ultrasound Contrast Agents”June 24, 2008 Nonclinical Development Program: SonoVue® Patricia D. Williams, PhD Chief Operating Officer Summit Drug Development, LLC Rockville, MD

  2. Pharmacology studies Toxicology studies Studies on concurrent SonoVue administration and ultrasound exposure at high acoustic pressure Retrospectively (after anaphylactoid reactions were observed in humans) potential mechanisms of these reactions were studied in vitro and in vivo Nonclinical Development Program: SonoVue

  3. Imaging Studies to define the expected human dose of SonoVue (pig, dog) Safety pharmacology studies at multiples of human imaging doses (MHDbsa) 3 (mouse), 5 (rat), 10 (rabbit), 18 (dog), 200 (monkey): - Cardiovascular (dog, monkey) - Respiratory (rat, rabbit) - CNS (mouse) - Gastrointestinal (rat) - Renal (rat) Pharmacology Studies: SonoVue

  4. CONSCIOUS DOGS: - No cardiovascular effects at 0.3 mL/kg (10-times clinical dose) - At 1.0 mL/kg transient hypotension in 2/7 dogs ANESTHETIZED DOGS (Pulmonary Hypertension model): - Transient and minimal (2.5 ± 1.3 mmHg) increase in PAP at 1 mL/kg No other significant Cardiovascular, CNS, Respiratory, GI or Renal findings in mouse, rats, rabbits, monkeys Key Findings Safety Pharmacology Studies: SonoVue

  5. Intravenous bolus administration Clinical formulation used Max doses 27-54 times the human dose (MHDbsa) Single dose studies (rat, monkey) 4-week repeated dose studies (rat, monkey) Genetic toxicology Reproductive toxicology (rat, rabbit) Other studies (local tolerance; blood compatibility) Toxicology Studies: SonoVue

  6. No significant findings in single and repeat dose studies up to the dose of 5 mL/kg (rat, monkey) Repeat dose NOEL in monkeys 5 mL/kg (50 MHDbsa) Cecum lesions in rats: considered rodent specific and observed with other contrast agents; otherwise NOEL 5 mL/kg No signs of immunological reactions in either species (thymus, spleen, lymph nodes) No lung lesions or emboli in either species No brain lesions after direct injection in carotid artery in rats (1 mL/kg) Key Findings Toxicology Studies: SonoVue

  7. RATS: No histological lesions in organs with SonoVue (1 and 5 mL/kg) and exposed to ultrasound at high acoustic pressure (up to MI 1.9) DOGS: No effect of ultrasound exposure (up to MI 1.2) on ECG (QTc) and on heart histopathology in conscious dogs administered with SonoVue (up to 1 mL/kg) Studies With SonoVue and Concurrent Ultrasound Exposure

  8. SonoVue was well tolerated in standard toxicological and safety pharmacology studies when administered alone or with concurrent ultrasound exposure Cardiovascular effects (transient hypotension) observed only at very high doses in dogs (1 mL/kg) Nonclinical study results corroborated the overall safety profile of SonoVue in humans Conclusion of the Nonclinical Animal Studies on SonoVue

  9. Low incidence (~ 0.01%) of allergic-like (anaphylactoid) reactions in humans found in post-marketing surveillance  Additional in vitro and animals studies were designed to investigate potential mechanism(s) of these reactions Mechanism of Anaphylactoid Reactions

  10. Hypothesis: allergic-like (anaphylactoid) reactions are related to the particulate nature of ultrasound contrast agents Cardiopulmonary studies at imaging dose in pigs Cardiovascular studies at very high doses in rats In vitro complement activation (pig, human) In vitro basophil activation (human) Mechanism of Anaphylactoid Reactions

  11. Common large animal used in echocardiography (eg. size of heart ~ human) Known to have severe reactions to injection of particulates Have high concentrations of pulmonary intravascular macrophages (PIMs) relative to other species including humans Imaging studies of UCA in pigs are routinely done with pretreatment with indomethacin or aspirin While useful for imaging, pig not considered as an animal model for safety pharmacology studies due to its over-reaction to all injected particles, however… Based on rare human reactions, Bracco pursued studies in naïve pigs to possibly gain insight into the mechanism of these anaphylactoid reactions The Use of the Pig: Pros & Cons

  12. Product B at 0.03 mL/kg Injection NAF 216 100 90 80 SAP (mm Hg) 70 60 50 Blood pressure 40 30 20 PAP 10 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Time (s) Product C at 0.01 mL/kg Injection NAF 39 100 90 80 (mm Hg) 70 SAP 60 50 Blood pressure 40 30 PAP 20 10 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Time (s) Changes in PAP and SAP in Pigs Following SonoVue, and other UCAs at Imaging Doses

  13. Marked Individual Variations of the CV Response to SonoVue in Pigs

  14. Thromboxane Release Parallels PAP Increasewith SonoVue and another UCA Kinetics of pulmonary arterial pressure and TXB2 changes following SonoVue® or another UCA (Product B)injections in the pig at the human imaging dose (mean of 5 injections)

  15. SonoVue and other marketed UCAs were tested on naïve, anesthetized pigs Doses in the range of 1- 4x human imaging dose ↓ SAP ↑ PAP ↑ HR ↑ Airway resistance ↓ Lung compliance Effects are dose and injection rate dependent ↑ Plasma Thromboxane B2 No detectable increases in C3a/C5a in vivo Effects blocked by aspirin pretreatment Effects similar to other injected particulates (liposomes, micellar lipids, etc) Key Findings Mechanistic Studies: Pig Model

  16. Marked individual variation but consistent response in pigs at imaging dose of UCA Pig shows sensitivity to SonoVue not seen in humans Symptoms & cardiovascular effects resemble anaphylactoid reactions in humans Release of vasoactive mediators considered key event in pigs Relevance to humans unknown Key Findings Mechanistic Studies: Pig Model

  17. Transient hypotension observed  5 mL/kg (25 MHDbsa) ↑ Plasma thromboxane B2 (similar to pigs), however… Hypotension NOT blocked by aspirin pretreatment (contrary to pigs) Hypotension blocked by PAF-antagonist (ABT-491) pretreatment (contrary to pigs) Hypotension blocked by complement depletion with cobra venom factor (CVF) Rats & pig mechanisms may differ in mediators or target cells involved Key Findings Mechanistic Studies: Rat Model

  18. Hypotension in Rats only at High Dose Levels Systemic arterial blood pressure changes induced by a single administration of SonoVue in non-anesthetized rats (Dose levels correspond to 100 – 300 MHDbw or 17 – 50 MHDbsa)

  19. SonoVue and another UCA tested at very high dose levels show similar findings after incubation in vitro Dose-dependent increase in C3a/C5a in pig plasma Dose-dependent increase in C3a/C5a/SC5b-9 in human serum No marked differences between pigs & humans in vitro No effects on human basophil activation (CD203c) Key Findings Mechanistic Studies: In Vitro Complement and Basophil Activation

  20. Symptoms observed in pigs are similar to human anaphylactoid reactions (cardiopulmonary changes) Incidence of anaphylactoid reactions in pigs >>> humans Sensitivity of pigs may be due to high density of PIMs relative to other species Rats show hypotension at very high dose Complement activation could be one of the mechanisms involved in the reactivity in rats, pigs and humans Summary of Mechanistic Studies: SonoVue

  21. SonoVue was well tolerated in nonclinical studies and this was corroborated by the clinical trials The lack of cardiovascular effects of SonoVue in safety pharmacology studies at doses relevant to humans correlates with the lack of anaphylactoid reactions in clinical trials Anaphylactoid reactions similar to humans are seen in naive pigs with various classes of particulate agents including UCA Reactions in pigs attributed to high density of PIMs The relevance of the findings in pigs to humans is unknown SonoVue: Lessons Learned for Future

  22. In vitro complement activation may be an early triggering event in the reactions observed in humans and represents a potential screening tool Bracco is incorporating in vitro and in vivo testing in selection of next generation products Results in in vitro and in vivo models may be useful qualitatively but not quantitatively for risk assessment The rare anaphylactoid reactions may be reduced through these screening efforts SonoVue: Lessons Learned for Future

  23. END

More Related