4.4 Article

Evaluation of sitaxentan (Thelin®) toxicity in juvenile rats and regulatory interactions during the development of a European Medicines Agency pediatric investigation plan

期刊

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 64, 期 1, 页码 43-50

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2012.05.018

关键词

Sitaxentan; Juvenile; Rat; Toxicity; European Medicines Agency; Perinatal; Postnatal; Hepatotoxicity; Testicular toxicity; Pediatric investigation plan

资金

  1. Encysive
  2. Pfizer
  3. Encysive Pharmaceuticals Inc.
  4. Pfizer Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is characterized by increasing pulmonary vascular resistance leading to right heart failure and death. Sitaxentan (Thelin (R)) demonstrated efficacy in adult PAH; however, PAH therapy for children is critically needed. To support development for pediatric patients, sitaxentan (10, 30, or 60 mg/kg/day) toxicity was assessed in juvenile (postnatal day 22-14 weeks) rats. Sitaxentan did not affect survival, clinical signs, or body weight; no target organ of toxicity was identified. Hematologic changes were decreased erythrocyte parameters, prothrombin time, and activated partial thromboplastin time. Reproductive development and function in both sexes was unaffected, as assessed by mating performance; fertility, estrous cyclicity, and maintenance of normal pregnancy up to mid-gestation; sperm count, morphology, and motility; and testicular changes. The no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) on reproductive development and function was 60 mg/kg/day; for toxicity, the NOAEL was 30 mg/kg/day (coagulation parameter changes). Sitaxentan did not adversely affect physical development, cognitive ability, or reproductive function at exposures that were 58- and 61-fold higher than those found in adults after therapeutic exposure (100 mg/day). This study is discussed in the context of evolving European pediatric drug legislation and guidance. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据