Thorough Preclinical Safety Package

It is estimated that approximately one third of compounds in pre-clinical development exhibit some level of cardiac risk. Of these, nearly 75% provide discordant results in traditional risk assessment assays leaving investigators confused about a compounds true risk or merit. Unfortunately, many of these discordances are not identified until the compounds are in clinical trials after millions of dollars and years of effort have been invested.

Why Are There Discordant Results?
The hERG channel plays a significant role in cardiac repolarization - acute hERG block alone will prolong QT and induce Torsades de Pointes. However, there are 13 known ion channels that play a role in excitation, contraction and repolarization of the heart, and compounds routinely inhibit or activate one or more of these other cardiac ion channels influencing the effect of hERG block. In addition, it has been reported that compound inhibition of ion channel trafficking from the endoplasmic reticulum to the cell membrane in the absence of channel block can result in the same effect as direct channel block.

Resolving Discordances Faster
& With More Certainty

ChanTest’s Thorough Preclinical Safety Package (TSP) provides a comprehensive preclinical cardiac safety assessment for full resolution of potential cardiac risk prior to IND submission. Multiple assays are employed to assess a compound’s effect on all cardiac ion channels at molecular, cellular and system levels. The TSP can also be used to resolve discordances between S7B recommended assays or issues identified during the clinical trial phase.

  • fast, comprehensive cardiac safety assessment
  • significantly lower costs compared to drug failure in the clinic
  • guides IND-enabling study selection
  • complete compound performance data and advice for IND submissions

The TSP is offered as a complete package, or individual assays can be selected for follow-up studies. For a quote or additional information, please email inquiries@chantest.com or call 216-332-1665.

(From the FDA publication Innovation or Stagnation, March, 2004)
In FDA’s view, the applied sciences needed for medical product development have not kept pace with the tremendous advances in the basic sciences. The new science is not being used to guide the technology development process in the same way that it is accelerating the technology discovery process. For medical technology, performance is measured in terms of product safety and effectiveness. Not enough applied scientific work has been done to create new tools to get fundamentally better answers about how the safety and effectiveness of new products can be demonstrated, in faster time frames, with more certainty, and at lower costs. In many cases, developers have no choice but to use the tools and concepts of the last century to assess this century’s candidates. As a result, the vast majority of investigational products that enter clinical trials fail. Often, product development programs must be abandoned after extensive investment of time and resources. This high failure rate drives up costs, and developers are forced to use the profits from a decreasing number of successful products to subsidize a growing number of expensive failures.