The use of recovery animals in nonclinical safety assessment studies with monoclonal antibodies: further 3Rs opportunities remain.

Assessment of reversibility from nonclinical toxicity findings in animals with potential adverse clinical impact is required during pharmaceutical development, but there is flexibility around how and when this is performed and if recovery animals are necessary. For monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and in accordance with ICH S6(R1) if inclusion of recovery animals is warranted, this need only occur in one study. Data on study designs for first-in-human (FIH)-enabling and later-development toxicity studies were shared from a recent collaboration between the NC3Rs, EPAA, Netherlands Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) and 14 pharmaceutical companies. This enabled a review of practices on recovery animal use during mAb development and identification of opportunities to reduce research animal use. Recovery animals were included in 68% of FIH-enabling and 69% of later-development studies, often in multiple studies in the same program. Recovery groups were commonly in control plus one test article-dosed group or in all dose groups (45% of studies, each design). Based on the shared data review and conclusions, limiting inclusion of recovery to a single nonclinical toxicology study and species, study design optimisation and use of existing knowledge instead of additional recovery groups provide opportunities to further reduce animal use within mAb development programs.

Opportunities for use of one species for longer-term toxicology testing during drug development: A cross-industry evaluation.

An international expert working group representing 37 organisations (pharmaceutical/biotechnology companies, contract research organisations, academic institutions and regulatory bodies) collaborated in a data sharing exercise to evaluate the utility of two species within regulatory general toxicology studies. Anonymised data on 172 drug candidates (92 small molecules, 46 monoclonal antibodies, 15 recombinant proteins, 13 synthetic peptides and 6 antibody-drug conjugates) were submitted by 18 organisations. The use of one or two species across molecule types, the frequency for reduction to a single species within the package of general toxicology studies, and a comparison of target organ toxicities identified in each species in both short and longer-term studies were determined. Reduction to a single species for longer-term toxicity studies, as used for the development of biologicals (ICHS6(R1) guideline) was only applied for 8/133 drug candidates, but might have been possible for more, regardless of drug modality, as similar target organ toxicity profiles were identified in the short-term studies. However, definition and harmonisation around the criteria for similarity of toxicity profiles is needed to enable wider consideration of these principles. Analysis of a more robust dataset would be required to provide clear, evidence-based recommendations for expansion of these principles to small molecules or other modalities where two species toxicity testing is currently recommended.

Vision of a near future: Bridging the human health-environment divide. Toward an integrated strategy to understand mechanisms across species for chemical safety assessment.

There is a growing recognition that application of mechanistic approaches to understand cross-species shared molecular targets and pathway conservation in the context of hazard characterization, provide significant opportunities in risk assessment (RA) for both human health and environmental safety. Specifically, it has been recognized that a more comprehensive and reliable understanding of similarities and differences in biological pathways across a variety of species will better enable cross-species extrapolation of potential adverse toxicological effects. Ultimately, this would also advance the generation and use of mechanistic data for both human health and environmental RA. A workshop brought together representatives from industry, academia and government to discuss how to improve the use of existing data, and to generate new NAMs data to derive better mechanistic understanding between humans and environmentally-relevant species, ultimately resulting in holistic chemical safety decisions. Thanks to a thorough dialogue among all participants, key challenges, current gaps and research needs were identified, and potential solutions proposed. This discussion highlighted the common objective to progress toward more predictive, mechanistically based, data-driven and animal-free chemical safety assessments. Overall, the participants recognized that there is no single approach which would provide all the answers for bridging the gap between mechanism-based human health and environmental RA, but acknowledged we now have the incentive, tools and data availability to address this concept, maximizing the potential for improvements in both human health and environmental RA.

Recommendations from a global cross-company data sharing initiative on the incorporation of recovery phase animals in safety assessment studies to support first-in-human clinical trials.

An international expert group which includes 30 organisations (pharmaceutical companies, contract research organisations, academic institutions and regulatory bodies) has shared data on the use of recovery animals in the assessment of pharmaceutical safety for early development. These data have been used as an evidence-base to make recommendations on the inclusion of recovery animals in toxicology studies to achieve scientific objectives, while reducing animal use. Recovery animals are used in pharmaceutical development to provide information on the potential for a toxic effect to translate into long-term human risk. They are included on toxicology studies to assess whether effects observed during dosing persist or reverse once treatment ends. The group devised a questionnaire to collect information on the use of recovery animals in general regulatory toxicology studies to support first-in-human studies. Questions focused on study design, the rationale behind inclusion or exclusion and the impact this had on internal and regulatory decisions. Data on 137 compounds (including 53 biologicals and 78 small molecules) from 259 studies showed wide variation in where, when and why recovery animals were included. An analysis of individual study and programme design shows that there are opportunities to reduce the use of recovery animals without impacting drug development.