Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39412216›Full record

ReviewCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2024

Quantitative systems toxicology modeling in pharmaceutical research and development: An industry-wide survey and selected case study examples.

Kylie A Beattie, Meghna Verma, Richard J Brennan, Diana Clausznitzer, Valeriu Damian, Derek Leishman, Mary E Spilker, Britton Boras, Zhenhong Li, Elias Oziolor and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. New approach methodologies (NAMs) for preclinical and translational evaluation of mRNA-lipid nanoparticle (LNP) therapeutics.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Kylie A BeattieTarget and Systems Safety, Non-Clinical Safety, GSK, Stevenage, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8579-6321
Meghna VermaSystems Medicine, Clinical Pharmacology and Quantitative Pharmacology, R&D BioPharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7776-0433
Richard J BrennanGlobal Investigative Toxicology, Sanofi, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0449-2730
Diana ClausznitzerQuantitative, Translational and ADME Sciences, AbbVie Deutschland, Ludwigshafen, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-4752-115X
Valeriu DamianComputational Sciences, GSK, Upper Providence, Pennsylvania, USA.
Derek LeishmanTranslational and Quantitative Toxicology, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Mary E SpilkerPharmacokinetics, Dynamics and Metabolism, Pfizer Research and Development, Pfizer Inc., La Jolla, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1629-3843
Britton BorasPharmacokinetics, Dynamics and Metabolism, Pfizer Research and Development, Pfizer Inc., La Jolla, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3624-9177
Zhenhong LiTranslational Modeling and Simulation, Pfizer Research and Development, Pfizer Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0009-0004-9561-3703
Elias OziolorDrug Safety Research and Development, Pfizer Research and Development, Pfizer Inc., Groton, Connecticut, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4078-1054
Theodore R RiegerPharmacometrics and Systems Pharmacology, Pfizer Research and Development, Pfizer Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9610-0983
Anna SherClinical Pharmacology Modeling and Simulation, GSK, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7159-0173

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative systems toxicology (QST) models are increasingly being applied for predicting and understanding toxicity liabilities in pharmaceutical research and development. A European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)-wide survey was completed by 15 companies. The results provide insights into the current use of QST models across the industry. 73% of responding companies with more than 10,000 employees utilize QST models. The most applied QST models are for liver, cardiac electrophysiology, and bone marrow/hematology. Responders indicated particular interest in QST models for the central nervous system (CNS), kidney, lung, and skin. QST models are used to support decisions in both preclinical and clinical stages of pharmaceutical development. The survey suggests high demand for QST models and resource limitations were indicated as a common obstacle to broader use and impact. Increased investment in QST resources and training may accelerate application and impact. Case studies of QST model use in decision-making within EFPIA companies are also discussed. This article aims to (i) share industry experience and learnings from applying QST models to inform decision-making in drug discovery and development programs, and (ii) share approaches taken during QST model development and validation and compare these with recommendations for modeling best practices and frameworks proposed in the literature. Discussion of QST-specific applications in relation to these modeling frameworks is relevant in the context of the recently proposed International Council for Harmonization (ICH) M15 guideline on general principles for Model-Informed Drug Development (MIDD).

Indexed as

Drug IndustryPharmaceutical ResearchToxicologyDrug DevelopmentDrug DiscoveryHumansModels, BiologicalSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39412216
PMCPMC11646944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.