To illustrate the process of addressing adverse preclinical findings (APFs) as
outlined in the first part of this review, a number of cases with unexpected APF
in toxicity studies with drug candidates is discussed in this second part. The
emphasis is on risk characterization, especially regarding the mode of action
(MoA), and risk evaluation regarding relevance for man. While severe APFs such
as retinal toxicity may turn out to be of little human relevance, minor findings
particularly in early toxicity studies, such as vasculitis, may later pose a
real problem. Rodents are imperfect models for endocrine APFs, non-rodents for
human cardiac effects. Liver and kidney toxicities are frequent, but they can
often be monitored in man and do not necessarily result in early termination of
drug candidates. Novel findings such as the unusual lesions in the
gastrointestinal tract and the bones presented in this review can be difficult
to explain. It will be shown that well known issues such as phospholipidosis and
carcinogenicity by agonists of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors
(PPAR) need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The latter is of particular
interest because the new PPAR α and dual α/γ agonists resulted in a change of
the safety paradigm established with the older PPAR α agonists. General
toxicologists and pathologists need some understanding of the principles of
genotoxicity and reproductive toxicity testing. Both types of preclinical
toxicities are major APF and clinical monitoring is difficult, generally leading
to permanent use restrictions.