A cross-industry survey on photosafety evaluation of pharmaceuticals after implementation of ICH S10.

A cross-industry survey was conducted by EFPIA/IQ DruSafe in 2018 to provide information on photosafety evaluation of pharmaceuticals after implementation of ICH S10. This survey focused on the strategy utilized for photosafety risk assessment, the design of nonclinical (in vitro and in vivo) and clinical evaluations, the use of exposure margins in risk assessment, and regulatory interactions. The survey results indicated that a staged approach for phototoxicity assessment has been widely accepted by regulatory authorities globally. The OECD-based 3T3 NRU Phototoxicity Test is the most frequently used in vitro approach. Modifications to this assay suggested by ICH S10 are commonly applied. For in-vitro-positives, substantial margins from in vitro IC50 values under irradiation to Cmax (clinical) have enabled further development without the need for additional photosafety data. In vivo phototoxicity studies typically involve dosing rodents and exposing skin and eyes to simulated sunlight, and subsequently evaluating at least the skin for erythema and edema. However, no formal guidelines exist and protocols are less standardized across companies. A margin-of-safety approach (based on Cmax at NOAEL) has been successfully applied to support clinical development. Experience with dedicated clinical phototoxicity studies was limited, perhaps due to effective de-risking approaches employed based on ICH S10.

Intravenous tolerability of an acid vehicle in Sprague Dawley rats and beagle dogs after daily slow bolus injection and infusion for one hour during 14 days.

To assess the tolerability of an acid vehicle to be used in toxicology studies, a low pH aqueous solution containing 16.4 mg/ml of citric acid, 4.2 mg/ml of disodium phosphate, 25 mg/ml of mannitol, adjusted with phosphoric acid/NaOH 1 M to pH 3 was daily administered intravenously to rats and dogs for 14 consecutive days. The dosing regimen consisted of a slow intravenous bolus injection given over 30 s (0.75 and 0.625 ml/kg, for rats and dogs, respectively) followed by intravenous infusion for one hour (3.75 and 2.75 ml/kg/h, for rats and dogs, respectively). In rats, the dose was administered via the lateral tail vein. In dogs, the intravenous bolus dose was administered via the vena cephalica, vena saphena or vena jugularis, whilst the infusion dose was given into the vena cephalica or vena saphena. In rats, administration of the vehicle was associated with clinical signs (occasional mild vocalization and agitation) which were considered to be due to local irritation during the dosing procedure. Nevertheless, only mild histopathological changes at the injection site were found, while no relevant clinical chemistry changes were found in this species. However, the vehicle caused significant vascular damage with thrombus formation in the dog. It is therefore concluded that this vehicle is suitable for 2-week rat toxicity studies, if carefully applied. The vehicle with its present regimen should not be used in dogs, in view of the prohibitive findings.