Species selection for nonclinical safety assessment of drug candidates: Examples of current industry practice.

In drug development, nonclinical safety assessment is pivotal for human risk assessment and support of clinical development. Selecting the relevant/appropriate animal species for toxicity testing increases the likelihood of detecting potential effects in humans, and although recent regulatory guidelines state the need to justify or dis-qualify animal species for toxicity testing, individual companies have developed decision-processes most appropriate for their molecules, experience and 3Rs policies. These generally revolve around similarity of metabolic profiles between toxicology species/humans and relevant pharmacological activity in at least one species for New Chemical Entities (NCEs), whilst for large molecules (biologics) the key aspect is similarity/presence of the intended human target epitope. To explore current industry practice, a questionnaire was developed to capture relevant information around process, documentation and tools/factors used for species selection. Collated results from 14 companies (Contract Research Organisations and pharmaceutical companies) are presented, along with some case-examples or over-riding principles from individual companies. As the process and justification of species selection is expected to be a topic for continued emphasis, this information could be adapted towards a harmonized approach or best practice for industry consideration.

The use of emerging safety biomarkers in nonclinical and clinical safety assessment - The current and future state: An IQ DruSafe industry survey.

Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies rarely disclose their use of translational emerging safety biomarkers (ESBs) during drug development, and the impact of ESB use on the speed of drug development remains unclear. A cross-industry survey of 20 companies of varying size was conducted to understand current trends in ESB use and future use prospects. The objectives were to: (1) determine current ESB use in nonclinical and clinical drug development and impact on asset advancement; (2) identify opportunities, gaps, and challenges to greater ESB implementation; and (3) benchmark perspectives on regulatory acceptance. Although ESBs were employed in only 5-50% of studies/programs, most companies used ESBs to some extent, with larger companies demonstrating greater nonclinical use. Inclusion of ESBs in investigational new drug applications (INDs) was similar across all companies; however, differences in clinical trial usage could vary among the prevailing health authority (HA). Broader implementation of ESBs requires resource support, cross-industry partnerships, and collaboration with HAs. This includes generating sufficient foundational data, demonstrating nonclinical to clinical translatability and practical utility, and clearly written criteria by HAs to enable qualification. If achieved, ESBs will play a critical role in the development of next-generation, translationally-tailored standard laboratory tests for drug development.