RESUMEN
The inclusion of recovery animals in nonclinical safety studies that support clinical trials is undertaken with a wide diversity of approaches even while operating under harmonized regulatory guidance. While empirical evaluation of reversibility may enhance the overall nonclinical risk assessment, there are often overlooked opportunities to reduce recovery animal use by leveraging robust scientific and regulatory information. In the past, there were several attempts to benchmark recovery practices; however, recommendations have not been consistently applied across the pharmaceutical industry. A working group (WG) sponsored by the 3Rs Translational and Predictive Sciences Leadership Group of the IQ Consortium conducted a survey of current industry practice related to the evaluation of reversibility/recovery in repeat dose toxicity studies. Discussion among the WG representatives included member company strategies and case studies that highlight challenges and opportunities for continuous refinements in the use of recovery animals. The case studies presented in this paper demonstrate increasing alignment with the Society of Toxicologic Pathology recommendations (2013) towards (1) excluding recovery phase cohorts by default (include only when scientifically justified), (2) minimizing the number of recovery groups (e.g., control and one dose level), and (3) excluding controls in the recovery cohort by leveraging external and/or dosing phase data. Recovery group exclusion and decisions regarding the timing of reversibility evaluation may be driven by indication, modality, and/or other scientific or strategic factors using a weight of evidence approach. The results and recommendations discussed present opportunities to further decrease animal use without impacting the quality of human risk assessment.
