In Preclinical Risk Assessment the term "Adversity" is very important for the fate of a newly detected or developed compound. The level of exposure where an adverse effect is detected can limit the therapeutic window for the intended human clinical use.
Should the term adverse only be used when a translatability to humans can not be ruled out ?
In consequence should it be only used for cross-species findings ?
Very interesting topic for discussion. If I understand your point correctly, I certainly agree that establishing the relevance of preclinical findings to humans should remain the most important task of toxicologists. It is not an easy task though since there remain really only a relatively limited number of findings that have consensus as being species-specific findings in toxicology studies (e.g., alpha-2u-globulin) and this list is periodically narrowed by the sentiment of "can we really be sure that it is not applicable to humans" (e.g., peroxisome proliferation). I would agree that a finding that is not translatable to humans should not be the reason to discontinue development on a potentially beneficial therapeutic agent.
Adversity in medicine reminds me of the word "singularity" in Physics. For me ,it is a euphemism to describe something we cannot control or simply we do not know.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Energy