No abstract

Safety Pharmacology is a rapidly developing discipline that uses the basic principles of pharmacology in a regulatory-driven process to generate data to inform risk/benefit assessment. The aim of Safety Pharmacology is to characterize the pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic (PK/PD) relationship of a drug's adverse effects using continuously evolving methodology. Unlike toxicology, Safety Pharmacology includes within its remit a regulatory requirement to predict the risk of rare lethal events. This gives Safety Pharmacology its unique character. The key issues for Safety Pharmacology are detection of an adverse effect liability, projection of the data into safety margin calculation and finally clinical safety monitoring. This article sets out to explain the drivers for Safety Pharmacology so that the wider pharmacology community is better placed to understand the discipline. It concludes with a summary of principles that may help inform future resolution of unmet needs (especially establishing model validation for accurate risk assessment). Subsequent articles in this issue of the journal address specific aspects of Safety Pharmacology to explore the issues of model choice, the burden of proof and to highlight areas of intensive activity (such as testing for drug-induced rare event liability, and the challenge of testing the safety of so-called biologics (antibodies, gene therapy and so on.).

The causes of ventricular arrhythmias in the acute setting of coronary artery disease (myocardial ischaemia and reperfusion) may be approached using two paradigms. One, the electrophysiological paradigm (disturbance of ionic homeostasis, electrogenesis, and conduction) has not been addressed in detail here. Instead, we have focused on the concept of a chemical paradigm of arrhythmogenesis. Many endogenous chemical substances (derived from the myocardium, nerves, blood plasma, platelets, leucocytes, and endothelium) accumulate in the ischaemic tissue or are produced during reperfusion and many of these have been suggested to modulate ventricular arrhythmias. Some substances may be arrhythmogenic and others may be antiarrhythmic. Together they determine whether or not arrhythmias occur. Potentially arrhythmogenic substances include potassium, catecholamines, cAMP, histamine, 5-HT, lysophosphatidylcholine, palmitylcarnitine, platelet activating factor, prostaglandins, leukotrienes, thromboxane A2, angiotensin II, endothelin, opioids, protons, calcium, and free radicals. We have considered each of these, with the objective of evaluating which are important in arrhythmogenesis in acute ischaemia and reperfusion. Two alternative models of arrhythmogenesis are possible in the context of the chemical paradigm: a series model (where one substance or its effects determines the arrhythmogenicity of another) and a parallel model (where numerous substances operate independently to cause ventricular arrhythmias). It is not yet clear which model is most appropriate; a combination of the two is possible, so a working prototype has been constructed which accommodates both. A set of criteria (hitherto lacking) for establishing whether a substance is sufficient and necessary for arrhythmogenesis is proposed. Some generalisations are given on approaches to establishment of these criteria for putative arrhythmogenic substances. Finally, we have considered how arrhythmogenic drug development may be influenced by using the chemical paradigm as an alternative to the electrophysiological paradigm of arrhythmogenesis.