The predictive value of animal models is less than 50%, which makes them less informative than a coin flip, says AAPS speaker – who also argues that clinical trial participants are not fully aware of the risks. (outsourcing-pharma.com)
Testing drug effects w/computer models more accurate than animal models
Animal testing has, to date, been the most accurate and reliable strategy for testing for possible risks and side effects of new drugs, but it is expensive, time-consuming, controversial, and some side effects can be missed. Recent research demonstrated that computational models representing human heart cells were more accurate than animal models in predicting cardiac side effects of drugs. (Smithsonian Magazine)
Roche teams with Emulate for organ-on-chip testing tech
Roche will use Emulate’s Human Emulation System to better predict the safety and efficacy of its drug candidates. (outsourcing-pharma.com)
Microtumors: a new and better method than testing drugs on rodents?
A recent study published in Science showed that the creation of “microtumors” can help predict drug effectiveness in cancer patients better than the current standard method of testing the drugs on rodents. Researchers took biopsies from colorectal cancer patients and made “cancer organoids”, or cell culture models of cancerous organs, and treated these microtumors with drugs and observed their effectiveness. (CNBC.com)
The ‘gold standard’ of preclinical research yields ‘highly unreliable’ results, study finds
Standardization in pre-clinical animal studies may be a cause of poor reproducibility- making translation to humans in clinical trials difficult, if unlikely, say researchers. (Outsourcing-Pharma.com)