FutureTox II: in vitro data and in silico models for predictive toxicology.

FutureTox II, a Society of Toxicology Contemporary Concepts in Toxicology workshop, was held in January, 2014. The meeting goals were to review and discuss the state of the science in toxicology in the context of implementing the NRC 21st century vision of predicting in vivo responses from in vitro and in silico data, and to define the goals for the future. Presentations and discussions were held on priority concerns such as predicting and modeling of metabolism, cell growth and differentiation, effects on sensitive subpopulations, and integrating data into risk assessment. Emerging trends in technologies such as stem cell-derived human cells, 3D organotypic culture models, mathematical modeling of cellular processes and morphogenesis, adverse outcome pathway development, and high-content imaging of in vivo systems were discussed. Although advances in moving towards an in vitro/in silico based risk assessment paradigm were apparent, knowledge gaps in these areas and limitations of technologies were identified. Specific recommendations were made for future directions and research needs in the areas of hepatotoxicity, cancer prediction, developmental toxicity, and regulatory toxicology.

Summary of a workshop on nonclinical and clinical immunotoxicity assessment of immunomodulatory drugs.

The number of anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory drugs being developed in the pharmaceutical industry has increased considerably in the past decade. This increase in research and development has been paralleled by questions from both regulatory agencies and industry on how best to assess decreased host resistance to infections or adverse immunostimulation caused by immunomodulatory agents such as anti-cytokine antibodies (e.g., the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors), anti-adhesion molecule antibodies (e.g., anti-alpha-4 integrin inhibitors) and immunostimulatory molecules (e.g., anti-CD28 antibodies). Although several methods have been developed for nonclinical assessment of immunotoxicity, highly publicized adverse events have brought to light significant gaps in the application of nonclinical immunotoxicity testing in assessing potential risk in humans. Confounding this problem is inconsistent application of immunotoxicology methods for risk assessment within the scientific community, limited understanding of appropriate immunotoxicity testing strategy for immunomodulators and inconsistent testing requests by regulatory agencies. To address these concerns, The Immunotoxicology Technical Committee (ITC) of the International Life Science Institute (ILSI) Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) organized a workshop on Immunomodulators and Clinical Immunotoxicology in May 2007. The Workshop was convened to identify key gaps in nonclinical and clinical immunotoxicity testing of anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory agents and to begin to develop consistent approaches for immunotoxicity testing and risk assessment. This paper summarizes the outcome of the HESI ITC Immunomodulators and Clinical Immunotoxicology Workshop. Topics not discussed at the Workshop were outside the scope of this report. Although more work is needed to develop consistent approaches for immunotoxicity assessment of immunomodulators, this Workshop provided the foundation for future discussion.

Development of the ICH guidelines for immunotoxicology evaluation of pharmaceuticals using a survey of industry practices.

An anonymous survey of pharmaceutical industry practices for immunotoxicology evaluation was conducted. This was in support of the development of the guideline on the preclinical evaluation of unintended modulation of the immune system for the International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. The survey was conducted in two phases in 2003 and 2004. A total of 64 responses were received of which 45 were included in the formal evaluation. The remaining compounds were excluded because they were cytotoxic anti-neoplastic drugs (N = 7), or due to insufficient information (N = 12). The purpose of the survey was to gather data on the correlation between routine toxicology studies (RTS) and additional immunotoxicological studies (AIS). The results of the survey were evaluated by the Expert Working Group (EWG) and classified as to positive or negative findings in RTS and AIS. The results of the survey showed that for 27 of 45 compounds (60%), the RTS and AIS endpoints were in agreement. In 12 of 45 cases (27%), the RTS endpoints showed immune modulation not observed in the AIS assays. Finally for 6 of 45 drugs (13%) a response was seen with the AIS methods where no significant effect was observed in the RTS endpoints. Length of dosing and the number of tests evaluated were similar in all groups. The groups where RTS detected signs of immunosuppression were more likely to have been dosed at or above MTD. This data contributed to the consensus in the EWG that routine immune function testing as an initial screen for all new drugs is not required. Instead, a weight-of-evidence approach including RTS and other causes for concern is recommended to identify the need for additional immunotoxicity studies.