This study seeks to show how effects seen in many preclinical animal tests, for the types of drugs used in this study, fail to be reproduced in patients, leading to investigation of drug combinations which might be more effective than each drug alone. While this is a reasonable argument for potential improvement of clinical efficacy in patients, a fundamental problem is that marmosets, as well as other NHPs (e.g. macaques) fail to accurately represent human Parkinson’s.
The uncertainty of using marmosets is further highlighted by the authors’ statement that ‘Although encouraging, these preclinical data need to be confirmed in the clinic’.
The two drugs given to the marmosets have already been tested in some clinical trials in patients. The first, Tozadenant, has undergone phase IIb clinical trials and is entering phase III trials in patients 1. Furthermore, this drug has been used in several clinical trials, both alone and in combination with other drugs (including L-DOPA) for Parkinson’s and other conditions[4].The second drug, Radiprodil was originally developed as a pain treatment. However, it failed to be effective during a phase II patient trial which was stopped as a result [5] [6].There is also a wealth of combination therapy trial data to treat Parkinson’s disease [7]. Directly human-relevant data from all of these studies provides more reliable evidence than non-clinical data from marmosets and other species, both for Parkinson’s and other conditions.
While the authors concluded that the combination of Radiprodil and Tozadenant was more effective than either drug alone, it is important to note key differences found in each of these drugs when tested in rats, marmosets and humans previously. For example, Tozadenant was considered generally non-effective and not significantly different from the control treatment during this study, based on treatment and observation in marmosets. However, phase II clinical trials in patients concluded a successful effect with Tozadenant and that phase III trials were warranted[8].
It is also feasible that a number of human-based approaches could and should have been investigated to test the drug combination used. Given that the study appears to have proceeded directly to the use of marmosets, and given the extensive history of using marmosets and other animals, it is unclear whether any intelligent, human-relevant strategies were considered first.
Furthermore, regulatory non-clinical (animal) testing guidelines published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) on combination drug therapy[9] intended for use in patients provide guidance on ‘the non-clinical strategies to be considered when developing a fixed combination based on the different data available in order to support the safe human use as well as avoid unnecessary repetition of animal studies’ . The guidelines also state that depending on the test data already available on the individual drugs and their classification as approved or new active substances, the relevant guidance should be sought as to which animal studies need to be carried out.
Given that both of the test drugs used are not entirely new substances and they have already been tested in (or are currently undergoing) patient trials with some considerable human data available, Animal Aid questions whether adequate investigation of all existing data was carried out, to determine if further marmoset experiments were fully justified from a regulatory perspective. This is not clear from the study report, which only states the approval, use and procedures performed on marmosets, with no explanation of whether any data review, weight of evidence or alternative strategies were considered. This is a particularly critical point, given a history of highly controversial and purely experimental procedures on marmosets at KCL, by some of the same research authors, for example to investigate the effects of ecstasy (MDMA) on Parkinson’s symptoms, despite the fact that ecstasy would never be approved as a treatment for the disease[10].