A comparison of the performance of contemporary, historical, and cross-lab controls in QTc assessment in conscious nonhuman primates.

Cardiovascular safety pharmacology and toxicology studies include vehicle control animals in most studies. Electrocardiogram data on common vehicles is accumulated relatively quickly. In the interests of the 3Rs principles it may be useful to use this historical information to reduce the use of animals or to refine the sensitivity of studies. We used implanted telemetry data from a large nonhuman primate (NHP) cardiovascular study (n = 48) evaluating the effect of moxifloxacin. We extracted 24 animals to conduct a n = 3/sex/group analysis. The remaining 24 animals were used to generate 1000 unique combinations of 3 male and 3 female NHP to act as control groups for the three treated groups in the n = 3/sex/group analysis. The distribution of treatment effects, median minimum detectable difference (MDD) values were gathered from the 1000 studies. These represent contemporary controls. Data were available from 42 NHP from 3 other studies in the same laboratory using the same technology. These were used to generate 1000 unique combinations of 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 NHP to act as historical control animals for the 18 animals in the treated groups of the moxifloxacin study. Data from an additional laboratory were also available for 20 NHP. The QT, RR and QT-RR data from the three sources were comparable. However, differences in the time course of QTc effect in the vehicle data from the two laboratories meant that it was not possible to use cross-lab controls. In the case of historical controls from the same laboratory, these could be used in place of the contemporary controls in determining a treatment's effect. There appeared to be an advantage in using larger (≥18) group sizes for historical controls. These data support the opportunity of using historical controls to reduce the number of animals used in new cardiovascular studies.

Comparing the sensitivity of cross-over and parallel study designs for QTc assessment: An analysis based on a single large study of moxifloxacin in 48 nonhuman primates.

The cardiovascular safety pharmacology (SP) study conducted to satisfy ICH S7A and S7B has commonly used a cross-over study design where each animal receives all treatments. In an increasing number of cases, cross-over designs are not possible and parallel studies have to be used. These can seldom be as large as 8 animals/treatment to match an n = 8 cross-over. Animals in parallel designs receive only one treatment. Parallel studies will have a different sensitivity to detect changes. This sensitivity is a critical question in using nonclinical QTc evaluations to support an integrated proarrhythmic risk assessment under the newly released ICH E14/S7B Q&As. The current analysis used a study large enough (n = 48) to be analyzed both as a parallel and as a cross-over design to directly compare the performance of the two experimental designs coupled to different statistical models, while all other study conduct aspects were the same. A total of 48 nonhuman primates (NHP) received 2 different treatments twice: vehicle, moxifloxacin (80 mg/kg), vehicle, moxifloxacin (80 mg/kg). Post-dose QTc interval data were recorded for 48 h for each treatment. Data were analyzed using 12 animals randomly selected for each treatment in a parallel design or as an n = 48 animal cross-over study. Different statistical models were used. The primary endpoint was the residual deviation (sigma) from the models applied to hourly time intervals. The sigma was used to determine the minimal detectable difference (MDD) for the study design-statistical model combination. Two statistical models were applicable to either study design. They gave similar sigma and resulting MDD values. In cross-over designs, the individual animal identification (ID) can be used in the statistical model. This enabled the smallest MDD value. Simple statistical models for analysis were identified: Treatment + Baseline for parallel designs and Treatment + ID for cross-over designs. The statistical sensitivity of NHP parallel study designs is reasonable (MDD for n = 6 of 12.7 ms), and in combination with testing exposures higher than likely to be necessary in man could be used in an integrated risk assessment. Where sensitivity of the NHP in vivo QTc assessment is critical, the cross-over design enabled a higher sensitivity (MDD 12.2 ms for n = 4; 8 ms for n = 8).

Comparison of validity of standard nonclinical group size selection versus standard clinical group sizes for nonhuman primate QTc prolongation evaluation.

The number of animals used in a nonhuman primate (NHP) in vivo QTc assessment conducted as part of the safety pharmacology (SP) studies on a potential new drug is relatively small (4-8 subjects). The number is much smaller than the number of healthy volunteers in a conventional thorough QT (TQT) study (40-60 volunteers). How is it possible that such small studies could offer an equivalent sensitivity in an integrated nonclinical and clinical cardiac repolarization risk assessment? This study provided the opportunity to empirically demonstrate in a large number of NHPs the performance of a nonclinical evaluation at a similar size to a TQT study. By contrasting an analysis mimicking the sampling and aggregation of QTc interval data in a manner which is TQT-like with a more conventional SP-like analysis it was demonstrated that the SP-like analysis was more sensitive. In prospective power calculations 80% power at p = 0.05 can be achieved for a 5 ms QTc change with only n = 8 NHPs using the SP-like analysis and in a group of only 4 NHPs 80% power to detect 10 ms could be achieved. By contrast groups of 24 NHPs would be required to achieve 80% power to detect 5 ms using the TQT-like sampling and aggregation approach. Overall, this study has demonstrated that smaller safety pharmacology in vivo QTc assessments using all the available data in larger data aggregates can achieve sensitivity comparable to a human TQT study.

Nonclinical safety assessment of epigenetic modulatory drugs: Current status and industry perspective.

Pharmaceutic products designed to perturb the function of epigenetic modulators have been approved by regulatory authorities for treatment of advanced cancer. While the predominant effort in epigenetic drug development continues to be in oncology, non-oncology indications are also garnering interest. A survey of pharmaceutical companies was conducted to assess the interest and concerns for developing small molecule direct epigenetic effectors (EEs) as medicines. Survey themes addressed (1) general levels of interest and activity with EEs as therapeutic agents, (2) potential safety concerns, and (3) possible future efforts to develop targeted strategies for nonclinical safety assessment of EEs. Thirteen companies contributed data to the survey. Overall, the survey data indicate the consensus opinion that existing ICH guidelines are effective and appropriate for nonclinical safety assessment activities with EEs. Attention in the framework of study design should, on a case by case basis, be considered for delayed or latent toxicities, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, and the theoretical potential for transgenerational effects. While current guidelines have been appropriate for the nonclinical safety assessments of epigenetic targets, broader experience with a wide range of epigenetic targets will provide information to assess the potential need for new or revised risk assessment strategies for EE drugs.