Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Sep;116(3):546-562.
doi: 10.1002/cpt.3316. Epub 2024 Jun 7.

Beyond MABEL: An Integrative Approach to First in Human Dose Selection of Immunomodulators by the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) Immuno-Safety Technical Committee (ITC)

Affiliations
Review

Beyond MABEL: An Integrative Approach to First in Human Dose Selection of Immunomodulators by the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) Immuno-Safety Technical Committee (ITC)

Mineo Matsumoto et al. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2024 Sep.

Erratum in

Abstract

Administration of a new drug candidate in a first-in-human (FIH) clinical trial is a particularly challenging phase in drug development and is especially true for immunomodulators, which are a diverse and complex class of drugs with a broad range of mechanisms of action and associated safety risks. Risk is generally greater for immunostimulators, in which safety concerns are associated with acute toxicity, compared to immunosuppressors, where the risks are related to chronic effects. Current methodologies for FIH dose selection for immunostimulators are focused primarily on identifying the minimum anticipated biological effect level (MABEL), which has often resulted in sub-therapeutic doses, leading to long and costly escalation phases. The Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) - Immuno-Safety Technical Committee (ITC) organized a project to address this issue through two complementary approaches: (i) an industry survey on FIH dose selection strategies and (ii) detailed case studies for immunomodulators in oncology and non-oncology indications. Key messages from the industry survey responses highlighted a preference toward more dynamic PK/PD approaches as in vitro assays are seemingly not representative of true physiological conditions for immunomodulators. These principles are highlighted in case studies. To address the above themes, we have proposed a revised decision tree, which expands on the guidance by the IQ MABEL Working Group (Leach et al. 2021). This approach facilitates a more refined recommendation of FIH dose selection for immunomodulators, allowing for a nuanced consideration of their mechanisms of action (MOAs) and the associated risk-to-benefit ratio, among other factors.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Sathish, J.G. et al. Challenges and approaches for the development of safer immunomodulatory biologics. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 12, 306–324 (2013).
    1. Brennan, F.R. et al. Safety and immunotoxicity assessment of immunomodulatory monoclonal antibodies. MAbs 2, 233–255 (2010).
    1. Tang, Y., Li, X. & Cao, Y. Quantitatively modeling factors that influence the therapeutic doses of antibodies. bioRxiv 10, 1–32 (2020).
    1. Leach, M.W. et al. Strategies and recommendations for using a data‐driven and risk‐based approach in the selection of first‐in‐human starting dose: an international consortium for innovation and quality in pharmaceutical development (IQ) assessment. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 109, 1395–1415 (2021).
    1. Lebrec, H. et al. HESI/FDA workshop on immunomodulators and cancer risk assessment: Building blocks for a weight‐of‐evidence approach. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 75, 72–80 (2016).

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources