Regulatory agencies recommend that centrally active drugs are tested for abuse potential before approval. Standard preclinical assessments are conducted in rats or non-human primates (NHPs). This study evaluated the ability of the zebrafish conditioned place preference (CPP) model to predict human abuse outcomes. Twenty-seven compounds from a variety of pharmacological classes were tested in zebrafish CPP, categorized as positive or negative, and analyzed using standard diagnostic tests of binary classification to determine the likelihood that zebrafish correctly predict robust positive signals in human subjective effects studies (+HSE) and/or Drug Enforcement Administration drug scheduling. Results were then compared with those generated for rat self-administration and CPP, as well as NHP self-administration, using this same set of compounds. The findings reveal that zebrafish concordance and sensitivity values were not significantly different from chance for both +HSE and scheduling. Although significant improvements in specificity and negative predictive values were observed for zebrafish relative to +HSE, specificity without sensitivity provides limited predictive value. Moreover, assessments in zebrafish provided no added value for predicting scheduling. By contrast, rat and NHP models generally possessed significantly improved concordance, sensitivity, and positive predictive values for both clinical measures. Although there may be predictive value with compounds from specific pharmacological classes (e.g., -opioid receptor agonists, psychostimulants) for zebrafish CPP, altogether these data highlight that using the current methodology, the zebrafish CPP model does not add value to the preclinical assessment of abuse potential.

Four poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have now presented phase 3 monotherapy data showing compelling benefit of targeting tumours enriched with DNA damage response (DDR) pathway deficiencies, including BRCA gene mutations. Indirect treatment comparisons using the published clinical data from these late stage trials suggest similar levels of monotherapy efficacy are observed in spite of reported differences in PARP trapping potency. However, there is greater diversity in the observed safety profiles. To try and understand these observations, we have carried out a head-to-head comparison of these four PARP inhibitors (olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib and talazoparib) as well as veliparib, which recently reported phase 3 chemotherapy combination data. In our studies, we included an assessment of molecular mechanism of action that included PAR inhibition, PARP trapping and synthetic lethality in isogenic BRCA mutant and wild type models. In addition, an assessment of selectivity in terms of both inhibition of PARP family members using a novel chemoproteomic approach, as well as secondary (off-target) activities was performed. Finally, effects on human haematopoietic stem cell viability and bio-distribution to bone marrow in the rat were tested and compared. A detailed correlation of our datasets with the observed clinical results, including adverse events, suggests these preclinical experiments provide an excellent predictor of clinical response and could be used to assess emerging as well as novel PARP inhibitors. OlaparibVeliparibRucaparibNiraparibTalazoparibCompanyAZAbbVieClovisTesaroPfizerPhaseApprovedIIIApprovedApprovedIIIPARP1 SPR Kd (µM)0.0010.0070.0010.0130.002PARP2 SPR Kd (µM)0.0010.0140.0230.0430.005PARPs with Proteomic Kd <1 µM1,2,3,4,131,2,3,4,131,2,3,4,10,131,2,131,2,3,4,5a,13, 16Sec. Pharm. #, top hit µM0/855/85 5HT7, 0.513/85 5HT4, 0.517/84 DAT, 0.040/85Monotherapy dose (mg)300 bd (tablet)500 bd600 bd300 od1 od Citation Format: Elisabetta Leo, Jeffrey Johannes, Giuditta Illuzzi, Andrew Zhang, Paul Hemsley, Michal J. Bista, Jonathan P. Orme, Verity A. Talbot, Ana J. Narvaez, Elizabeth Underwood, Andrew Pike, Jenni K. Nikkila, Lucy Riches, Sinbad Sweeney, Frida Gustafsson, Anna Cronin, Piero Ricchiuto, Debora A. Roaquin, Fiona Pachl, Eric Miele, Ruth MacDonald, Glen Hawthorne, Andrew N. Mead, Mark J. O'Connor. A head-to-head comparison of the properties of five clinical PARP inhibitors identifies new insights that can explain both the observed clinical efficacy and safety profiles [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-273.

Objectives This systematic review focuses on the use of the in vitro hollow fibre infection model (HFIM) for microbial culture. We summarize the direction of the field to date and propose best-practice principles for reporting of the applications. Methods Searches in six databases (MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, PubMed®, BIOSIS®, SCOPUS® and Cochrane®) up to January 2020 identified 129 studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed and extracted data from each publication. The quality of reporting of microbiological and technical parameters was analysed. Results Forty-seven out of 129 (36.4%) studies did not report the minimum pharmacokinetic parameters required in order to replicate the pharmacokinetic profile of HFIM experiments. Fifty-three out of 129 (41.1%) publications did not report the medium used in the HFIM. The overwhelming majority of publications did not perform any technical repeats [107/129 (82.9%)] or biological repeats [97/129 (75.2%)]. Conclusions This review demonstrates that most publications provide insufficient data to allow for results to be evaluated, thus impairing the reproducibility of HFIM experiments. Therefore, there is a clear need for the development of laboratory standardization and improved reporting of HFIM experiments.