Background Recent scientific advances in cancer research have led to the development of immunomodulatory and molecularly targeted drugs with better safety profiles than chemotherapeutics, which makes it possible to include healthy volunteers (HVs) in clinical trials. In this study, we aimed to identify the number of marketing authorization applications (MAAs) that enrolled HVs in a clinical trial and to identify the number of anticancer drugs that were given to HVs despite a positive genotoxic finding. In addition, we evaluated the dose of anticancer drugs administered to HVs and the justification for proceeding with HV studies despite a positive genotoxic finding. Methods Publicly available information from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) website was used for this study. Anticancer drugs were identified using the human medicines highlights published by EMA between January 2010 and December 2019. EPARs were used to collect general information of the anticancer drugs, details on genotoxicity studies, and the enrollment of HVs in clinical trials. Results We identified 71 MAAs for small molecule anticancer drugs with a positive or negative CHMP opinion in the EU. Forty-eight anticancer drugs were studied in HVs, of which 12 anticancer drugs were administered to HVs despite positive genotoxic findings in the standard battery. Systematic and extensive genetic toxicology screening demonstrated the absence of genotoxic risks to the cell system. Conclusion We showed that despite a positive genotoxic finding, comprehensive genetic toxicology testing demonstrated the absence of risks to the cell system at the human exposure dose. Therefore, these anticancer drugs posed no harm to HVs.

Background: Metoprolol, a beta-blocker, is used to reduce the heart rate. Although it has been demonstrated that the metoprolol plasma concentration is higher in women than in men, the same dose is recommended. In this study, we investigated whether the metoprolol concentration was associated with a stronger heart-rate reduction and bradycardia in women than in men. Methods: This study is part of the Rotterdam Study (RS), a population-based prospective cohort study. Blood samples from a random subset of 2000 participants were used to assess metoprolol plasma levels. An analysis of heart rate (beats per minute, bpm) and bradycardia (<60 bpm) was performed in metoprolol users with an ECG at the day of blood collection to study sex-specific differences in heart rate and the risk of bradycardia. Results: In total, 40 women and 39 men were included. There was a statistically significant association between metoprolol concentration and heart rate in women (p-value: 0.014) but not in men (p-value: 0.639). Furthermore, women in the highest concentration group had a more than 15-times-higher risk of bradycardia than women in the lowest concentration group (OR = 15.6; 95% CI = 1.1, 217.3); however, this was not seen in men (OR = 1.3; 95% CI = 0.1, 12.4). After adjustment for age, BMI, time between blood sample and ECG, hypertension, myocardial infarction, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, digoxin use, and calcium channel blocker use, the association between concentration and bradycardia in women remained statistically significant. Conclusions: Women, but not men, had a statistically significantly lower heart rate at higher metoprolol plasma concentration and a statistically significantly increased risk of bradycardia.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) offer expedited regulatory approval programs for drugs with high potential patient value applicable at different stages leading to marketing authorization: (i) drug development (fast track designation (FTD), breakthrough therapy designation (BTD), regenerative medicine advanced therapy designation in the United States, and priority medicines scheme in the European Union), (ii) review of marketing authorization application (priority review in the United States and accelerated assessment in the European Union), (iii) approval of drug (accelerated approval in the United States and conditional approval in the European Union). Typical clinical development time of 76 new anticancer drugs, for which the EMA gave a positive opinion between January 2010 and December 2019, was 6.7 years: 5.8 years for small molecules and 7.7 years for biotechnology‐derived products. Drugs following only BTD (5.6 years) typically had a shorter clinical development time than drugs following only FTD (6.4 years) or both FTD and BTD (6.4 years), compared to drugs not following any expedited regulatory approval program at the drug development stage (7.7 years). Drugs following an expedited regulatory approval program at the stage of drug development and accelerated approval in the United States (FDA1 [4.5 years] and FDA3 [5.6 years]), and drugs following the standard procedure at the stage of drug development and conditional approval in the European Union (EMA5 [5.5 years] and EMA7 [4.5 years]) typically had a reduced clinical development time. These findings provide insight for the industry into combinations of expedited regulatory approval programs correlated with shorter clinical development time of new anticancer drugs.