Considerations from the Innovation and Quality Induction Working Group in Response to Drug-Drug Interaction Guidance from Regulatory Agencies: Guidelines on Model Fitting and Recommendations on Time Course for In Vitro Cytochrome P450 Induction Studies Including Impact on Drug Interaction Risk Assessment.

Translational and ADME Sciences Leadership Group Induction Working Group (IWG) presents an analysis on the time course for cytochrome P450 induction in primary human hepatocytes. Induction of CYP1A2, CYP2B6, and CYP3A4 was evaluated by seven IWG laboratories after incubation with prototypical inducers (omeprazole, phenobarbital, rifampicin, or efavirenz) for 6-72 hours. The effect of incubation duration and model-fitting approaches on induction parameters (Emax and EC50) and drug-drug interaction (DDI) risk assessment was determined. Despite variability in induction response across hepatocyte donors, the following recommendations are proposed: 1) 48 hours should be the primary time point for in vitro assessment of induction based on mRNA level or activity, with no further benefit from 72 hours; 2) when using mRNA, 24-hour incubations provide reliable assessment of induction and DDI risk; 3) if validated using prototypical inducers (>10-fold induction), 12-hour incubations may provide an estimate of induction potential, including characterization as negative if <2-fold induction of mRNA and no concentration dependence; 4) atypical dose-response ("bell-shaped") curves can be addressed by removing points outside an established confidence interval and %CV; 5) when maximum fold induction is well defined, the choice of nonlinear regression model has limited impact on estimated induction parameters; 6) when the maximum fold induction is not well defined, conservative DDI risk assessment can be obtained using sigmoidal three-parameter fit or constraining logistic three- or four-parameter fits to the maximum observed fold induction; 7) preliminary data suggest initial slope of the fold induction curve can be used to estimate Emax/EC50 and for induction risk assessment. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Regulatory agencies provide inconsistent guidance on the optimum length of time to evaluate cytochrome P450 induction in human hepatocytes, with EMA recommending 72 hours and FDA suggesting 48-72 hours. The Induction Working Group analyzed a large data set generated by seven member companies and determined that induction response and drug-drug risk assessment determined after 48-hour incubations were representative of 72-hour incubations. Additional recommendations are provided on model-fitting techniques for induction parameter estimation and addressing atypical concentration-response curves.

Considerations from the Innovation and Quality Induction Working Group in Response to Drug-Drug Interaction Guidances from Regulatory Agencies: Focus on CYP3A4 mRNA In Vitro Response Thresholds, Variability, and Clinical Relevance.

The Innovation and Quality Induction Working Group presents an assessment of best practice for data interpretation of in vitro induction, specifically, response thresholds, variability, application of controls, and translation to clinical risk assessment with focus on CYP3A4 mRNA. Single concentration control data and Emax/EC50 data for prototypical CYP3A4 inducers were compiled from many human hepatocyte donors in different laboratories. Clinical CYP3A induction and in vitro data were gathered for 51 compounds, 16 of which were proprietary. A large degree of variability was observed in both the clinical and in vitro induction responses; however, analysis confirmed in vitro data are able to predict clinical induction risk. Following extensive examination of this large data set, the following recommendations are proposed. a) Cytochrome P450 induction should continue to be evaluated in three separate human donors in vitro. b) In light of empirically divergent responses in rifampicin control and most test inducers, normalization of data to percent positive control appears to be of limited benefit. c) With concentration dependence, 2-fold induction is an acceptable threshold for positive identification of in vitro CYP3A4 mRNA induction. d) To reduce the risk of false positives, in the absence of a concentration-dependent response, induction ≥ 2-fold should be observed in more than one donor to classify a compound as an in vitro inducer. e) If qualifying a compound as negative for CYP3A4 mRNA induction, the magnitude of maximal rifampicin response in that donor should be ≥ 10-fold. f) Inclusion of a negative control adds no value beyond that of the vehicle control.

Considerations from the IQ Induction Working Group in Response to Drug-Drug Interaction Guidance from Regulatory Agencies: Focus on Downregulation, CYP2C Induction, and CYP2B6 Positive Control.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA), the Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have issued guidelines for the conduct of drug-drug interaction studies. To examine the applicability of these regulatory recommendations specifically for induction, a group of scientists, under the auspices of the Drug Metabolism Leadership Group of the Innovation and Quality (IQ) Consortium, formed the Induction Working Group (IWG). A team of 19 scientists, from 16 of the 39 pharmaceutical companies that are members of the IQ Consortium and two Contract Research Organizations reviewed the recommendations, focusing initially on the current EMA guidelines. Questions were collated from IQ member companies as to which aspects of the guidelines require further evaluation. The EMA was then approached to provide insights into their recommendations on the following: 1) evaluation of downregulation, 2) in vitro assessment of CYP2C induction, 3) the use of CITCO as the positive control for CYP2B6 induction by CAR, 4) data interpretation (a 2-fold increase in mRNA as evidence of induction), and 5) the duration of incubation of hepatocytes with test article. The IWG conducted an anonymous survey among IQ member companies to query current practices, focusing specifically on the aforementioned key points. Responses were received from 19 companies. All data and information were blinded before being shared with the IWG. The results of the survey are presented, together with consensus recommendations on downregulation, CYP2C induction, and CYP2B6 positive control. Results and recommendations related to data interpretation and induction time course will be reported in subsequent articles.

Managing the challenge of chemically reactive metabolites in drug development.

The normal metabolism of drugs can generate metabolites that have intrinsic chemical reactivity towards cellular molecules, and therefore have the potential to alter biological function and initiate serious adverse drug reactions. Here, we present an assessment of the current approaches used for the evaluation of chemically reactive metabolites. We also describe how these approaches are being used within the pharmaceutical industry to assess and minimize the potential of drug candidates to cause toxicity. At early stages of drug discovery, iteration between medicinal chemistry and drug metabolism can eliminate perceived reactive metabolite-mediated chemical liabilities without compromising pharmacological activity or the need for extensive safety evaluation beyond standard practices. In the future, reactive metabolite evaluation may also be useful during clinical development for improving clinical risk assessment and risk management. Currently, there remains a huge gap in our understanding of the basic mechanisms that underlie chemical stress-mediated adverse reactions in humans. This review summarizes our views on this complex topic, and includes insights into practices considered by the pharmaceutical industry.

Challenges and solutions to metabolites in safety testing: impact of the International Conference on Harmonization M3(R2) guidance.

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD: The FDA and the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) recently issued regulatory guidance on metabolites in safety testing (MIST). One of the key differences between these two types of guidance is the threshold for a major metabolite: > 10% of AUC of the parent drug at steady-state (the FDA) versus > 10% of drug-related exposure (ICH). The FDA agreed to adopt the ICH M3 threshold in 2010. Both guidance require metabolite profiling in humans during early clinical development which have presented significant challenges from two aspects: i) how to balance the recommendation of front-loading of metabolism studies with the need to invest resources appropriately according to the stage of drug development and ii) how to fully utilize alternative bioanalytical approaches to generate reliable data for enabling prompt and informed decisions, without always resorting to resource-intensive good laboratory practices bioanalysis. AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW: This review summarizes current thinking in the pharmaceutical industry on these two aspects. WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN: this review aims to provide the reader with a clear understanding of the importance and timing of various metabolism studies and an overview of the latest bioanalytical approaches of quantitation of metabolites in the absence of reference standards. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: the approaches outlined are not intended to be universal solutions to MIST. The researcher still has to consider a case-by-case approach with scientific justification to comply with the MIST guidance.

The conduct of in vitro and in vivo drug-drug interaction studies: a Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) perspective.

Current regulatory guidances do not address specific study designs for in vitro and in vivo drug-drug interaction studies. There is a common desire by regulatory authorities and by industry sponsors to harmonize approaches, to allow for a better assessment of the significance of findings across different studies and drugs. There is also a growing consensus for the standardization of cytochrome P450 (P450) probe substrates, inhibitors and inducers and for the development of classification systems to improve the communication of risk to health care providers and to patients. While existing guidances cover mainly P450-mediated drug interactions, the importance of other mechanisms, such as transporters, has been recognized more recently, and should also be addressed. This article was prepared by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Drug Metabolism and Clinical Pharmacology Technical Working Groups and represents the current industry position. The intent is to define a minimal best practice for in vitro and in vivo pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction studies targeted to development (not discovery support) and to define a data package that can be expected by regulatory agencies in compound registration dossiers.