A (not) new Rx: Quality Improvement for NAM.

New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) are a rapidly growing set of tools/methods for use food, drug, consumer product, or chemical safety assessment paradigms. The massive growth in NAMs tech development, publication, and legislation has been paralleled by a growing sense of frustration. The challenge of realizing the systems-level changes needed to catalyze the broad-scale adoption and use of NAMs is substantial. This Commentary asserts that these challenges may be less unique than perceived to date, and points to specific opportunities to learn from decades of experience (both positive and negative) from the Quality Improvement (QI) movement in the public health and healthcare arenas. Specific recommendations to inform and guide NAMs development are offered.

Integrated Genotoxicity Testing of three anti-infective drugs using the TGx-DDI transcriptomic biomarker and high-throughput CometChip® assay in TK6 cells.

Genotoxicity testing relies on the detection of gene mutations and chromosome damage and has been used in the genetic safety assessment of drugs and chemicals for decades. However, the results of standard genotoxicity tests are often difficult to interpret due to lack of mode of action information. The TGx-DDI transcriptomic biomarker provides mechanistic information on the DNA damage-inducing (DDI) capability of chemicals to aid in the interpretation of positive in vitro genotoxicity data. The CometChip® assay was developed to assess DNA strand breaks in a higher-throughput format. We paired the TGx-DDI biomarker with the CometChip® assay in TK6 cells to evaluate three model agents: nitrofurantoin (NIT), metronidazole (MTZ), and novobiocin (NOV). TGx-DDI was analyzed by two independent labs and technologies (nCounter® and TempO-Seq®). Although these anti-infective drugs are, or have been, used in human and/or veterinary medicine, the standard genotoxicity testing battery showed significant genetic safety findings. Specifically, NIT is a mutagen and causes chromosome damage, and MTZ and NOV cause chromosome damage in conventional in vitro tests. Herein, the TGx-DDI biomarker classified NIT and MTZ as non-DDI at all concentrations tested, suggesting that NIT's mutagenic activity is bacterial specific and that the observed chromosome damage by MTZ might be a consequence of in vitro test conditions. In contrast, NOV was classified as DDI at the second highest concentration tested, which is in line with the fact that NOV is a bacterial DNA-gyrase inhibitor that also affects topoisomerase II at high concentrations. The lack of DNA damage for NIT and MTZ was confirmed by the CometChip® results, which were negative for all three drugs except at overtly cytotoxic concentrations. This case study demonstrates the utility of combining the TGx-DDI biomarker and CometChip® to resolve conflicting genotoxicity data and provides further validation to support the reproducibility of the biomarker.

A Collaborative Initiative to Establish Genomic Biomarkers for Assessing Tumorigenic Potential to Reduce Reliance on Conventional Rodent Carcinogenicity Studies.

There is growing recognition across broad sectors of the scientific community that use of genomic biomarkers has the potential to reduce the need for conventional rodent carcinogenicity studies of industrial chemicals, agrochemicals, and pharmaceuticals through a weight-of-evidence approach. These biomarkers fall into 2 major categories: (1) sets of gene transcripts that can identify distinct tumorigenic mechanisms of action; and (2) cancer driver gene mutations indicative of rapidly expanding growth-advantaged clonal cell populations. This call-to-action article describes a collaborative approach launched to develop and qualify biomarker gene expression panels that measure widely accepted molecular pathways linked to tumorigenesis and their activation levels to predict tumorigenic doses of chemicals from short-term exposures. Growing evidence suggests that application of such biomarker panels in short-term exposure rodent studies can identify both tumorigenic hazard and tumorigenic activation levels for chemical-induced carcinogenicity. In the future, this approach will be expanded to include methodologies examining mutations in key cancer driver gene mutation hotspots as biomarkers of both genotoxic and nongenotoxic chemical tumor risk. Analytical, technical, and biological validation studies of these complementary genomic tools are being undertaken by multisector and multidisciplinary collaborative teams within the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute. Success from these efforts will facilitate the transition from current heavy reliance on conventional 2-year rodent carcinogenicity studies to more rapid animal- and resource-sparing approaches for mechanism-based carcinogenicity evaluation supporting internal and regulatory decision-making.

'All In': a pragmatic framework for COVID-19 testing and action on a global scale.

Current demand for SARS-CoV-2 testing is straining material resource and labor capacity around the globe. As a result, the public health and clinical community are hindered in their ability to monitor and contain the spread of COVID-19. Despite broad consensus that more testing is needed, pragmatic guidance toward realizing this objective has been limited. This paper addresses this limitation by proposing a novel and geographically agnostic framework (the 4Ps framework) to guide multidisciplinary, scalable, resource-efficient, and achievable efforts toward enhanced testing capacity. The 4Ps (Prioritize, Propagate, Partition, and Provide) are described in terms of specific opportunities to enhance the volume, diversity, characterization, and implementation of SARS-CoV-2 testing to benefit public health. Coordinated deployment of the strategic and tactical recommendations described in this framework has the potential to rapidly expand available testing capacity, improve public health decision-making in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and/or to be applied in future emergent disease outbreaks.

Stakeholder perspectives on addressing adverse events from adjuvant cancer therapy: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: With increasing survival rates, a growing population of patients with cancer have received or will receive adjuvant therapy to prevent cancer recurrences. Patients and caregivers will confront the complexities of balancing the preventative benefits of adjuvant therapy with possible near-term or long-term adverse events (AEs). Adjuvant treatment-related AEs (from minimal to severe) can impact therapeutic adherence, quality of life, emotional and physical health, and survival. However, to the authors' knowledge, limited information is available regarding how stakeholders use or desire to use adjuvant-related AE information to inform the care of patients with cancer. METHODS: A qualitative, purposeful sampling approach was used to elicit stakeholder feedback via semistructured interviews (24 interviews). Drug development, drug regulatory, clinical, payer, and patient/patient advocacy stakeholders were questioned about the generation, dissemination, and use of adjuvant treatment-related AE information to inform the care of patients with cancer. Transcripts were coded independently by 2 senior health care researchers and reconciled to identify key themes. RESULTS: All stakeholder groups in the current study identified needed improvements in each of the following 4 areas: 1) improving the accessibility and relevance of AE-related information; 2) better integrating and implementing available information regarding AEs for decisions; 3) connecting contemporary cultural and economic value systems to the generation and use of information regarding adjuvant treatment-related AEs; and 4) addressing a lack of alignment and ownership of stakeholder efforts to improve the use of AE information in the adjuvant setting. CONCLUSIONS: Despite commonalities in the overall needs identified by the diverse stakeholders in the current study, broad systemic change has been stymied. The current study identified the lack of alignment and the absence of a central "owner" of these diffuse efforts as a previously unrecognized hurdle to realizing the desired systemic improvements. Future initiatives aimed at improving quality of life and outcomes for patients receiving adjuvant therapy through the improved use of AE information must address this challenge through innovative collectives and novel leadership strategies.

Do current approaches to assessing therapy related adverse events align with the needs of long-term cancer patients and survivors?

The increasing efficacy of cancer therapeutics means that the timespan of cancer therapy administration is undergoing a transition to increasingly long-term settings. Unfortunately, chronic therapy-related adverse health events are an unintended, but not infrequent, outcome of these life-saving therapies. Historically, the cardio-oncology field has evolved as retrospective effort to understand the scope, mechanisms, and impact of treatment-related toxicities that were already impacting patients. This review explores whether current systemic approaches to detecting, reporting, tracking, and communicating AEs are better positioned to provide more proactive or concurrent information to mitigate the impact of AE's on patient health and quality of life. Because the existing tools and frameworks for capturing these effects are not specific to cardiology, this study looks broadly at the landscape of approaches and assumptions. This review finds evidence of increasing focus on the provision of actionable information to support long-term health and quality of life for survivors and those on chronic therapy. However, the current means to assess and support the impact of this burden on patients and the healthcare system are often of limited relevance for an increasingly long-lived survivor and patient population.

Can non-clinical repolarization assays predict the results of clinical thorough QT studies? Results from a research consortium.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Translation of non-clinical markers of delayed ventricular repolarization to clinical prolongation of the QT interval corrected for heart rate (QTc) (a biomarker for torsades de pointes proarrhythmia) remains an issue in drug discovery and regulatory evaluations. We retrospectively analysed 150 drug applications in a US Food and Drug Administration database to determine the utility of established non-clinical in vitro IKr current human ether-à-go-go-related gene (hERG), action potential duration (APD) and in vivo (QTc) repolarization assays to detect and predict clinical QTc prolongation. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: The predictive performance of three non-clinical assays was compared with clinical thorough QT study outcomes based on free clinical plasma drug concentrations using sensitivity and specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, positive (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs) and likelihood ratios (LRs). KEY RESULTS: Non-clinical assays demonstrated robust specificity (high true negative rate) but poor sensitivity (low true positive rate) for clinical QTc prolongation at low-intermediate (1×-30×) clinical exposure multiples. The QTc assay provided the most robust PPVs and NPVs (ability to predict clinical QTc prolongation). ROC curves (overall test accuracy) and LRs (ability to influence post-test probabilities) demonstrated overall marginal performance for hERG and QTc assays (best at 30× exposures), while the APD assay demonstrated minimal value. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The predictive value of hERG, APD and QTc assays varies, with drug concentrations strongly affecting translational performance. While useful in guiding preclinical candidates without clinical QT prolongation, hERG and QTc repolarization assays provide greater value compared with the APD assay.

Enhancing quality of life as a goal for anticancer therapeutics.

Translational cancer research requires a quality-of-life-driven agenda.

A public-private consortium advances cardiac safety evaluation: achievements of the HESI Cardiac Safety Technical Committee.

INTRODUCTION: The evaluation of cardiovascular side-effects is a critical element in the development of all new drugs and chemicals. Cardiac safety issues are a major cause of attrition and withdrawal due to adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in pharmaceutical drug development. METHODS: The evolution of the HESI Technical Committee on Cardiac Safety from 2000-2013 is presented as an example of an effective international consortium of academic, government, and industry scientists working to improve cardiac safety. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The HESI Technical Committee Working Groups facilitated the development of a variety of platforms for resource sharing and communication among experts that led to innovative strategies for improved drug safety. The positive impacts arising from these Working Groups are described in this article.

Current practices in preclinical drug development: gaps in hemostasis testing to assess risk of thromboembolic injury.

The Health and Environmental Sciences Institute Cardiac Biomarkers Working Group surveyed the pharmaceutical development community to investigate practices in assessing hemostasis, including detection of hypocoagulable and hypercoagulable states. Scientists involved in discovery, preclinical, and clinical research were queried on laboratory evaluation of endothelium, platelets, coagulation, and fibrinolysis during safety assessment studies. Results indicated that laboratory assessment of hemostasis is inconsistent among institutions and not harmonized between preclinical and clinical studies. Hemostasis testing in preclinical drug safety studies primarily focuses on the risk of bleeding, whereas the clinical complication of thrombosis is seldom assessed. Our results reveal the need for broader utilization of biomarkers to detect altered hemostasis (e.g., endothelial and platelet activation) to improve preclinical safety assessments early in the drug development process. Survey respondents indicated a critical lack of validated markers of hypercoagulability and subclinical thrombosis in animal testing. Additional obstacles included limited blood volume, lack of cross-reacting antibodies for hemostasis testing in laboratory species, restricted availability of specialized hemostasis analyzers, and few centers of expertise in animal hemostasis testing. Establishment of translatable biomarkers of prothrombotic states in multiple species and strategic implementation of testing on an industry-wide basis are needed to better avert untoward drug complications in patient populations.

Integrated and translational nonclinical in vivo cardiovascular risk assessment: gaps and opportunities.

Cardiovascular (CV) safety concerns are a significant source of drug development attrition in the pharmaceutical industry today. Though current nonclinical testing paradigms have largely prevented catastrophic CV events in Phase I studies, many challenges relating to the inability of current nonclinical safety testing strategies to model patient outcomes persist. Contemporary approaches include a spectrum of evaluations of CV structure and function in a variety of laboratory animal species. These approaches might be improved with a more holistic integration of these evaluations in repeat-dose studies, addition of novel endpoints with greater sensitivity and translational application, and use of more relevant animal models. Particular opportunities present with advances in imaging capabilities applicable to rodent and non-rodent species, technical capabilities for measuring CV function in repeat-dose animal studies, detection and quantitation of microRNAs and wider use of alternative animal models. Strategic application of these novel opportunities considering putative CV risk associated with the molecular drug target as well as inherent risks present in the target patient population could tailor or 'personalize' nonclinical safety assessment as a more translational evaluation. This paper is a call to action for the clinical and nonclinical drug safety communities to assess these opportunities to determine their utility in filling potential gaps in our current cardiovascular safety testing paradigms.

Human and environmental health challenges for the next decade (2010–2020).

The public health and environmental communities will face many challenges during the next decade. To identify significant issues that might be addressed as part of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) scientific portfolio, an expert group of key government, academic, and industry scientists from around the world were assembled in 2009 to map the current and future landscape of scientific and regulatory challenges. The value of the scientific mapping exercise was the development of a tool which HESI, individual companies, research institutions, government agencies, and regulatory authorities can use to anticipate key challenges, place them into context, and thus strategically refine and expand scientific project portfolios into the future.

What do we need to know prior to thinking about incorporating an epigenetic evaluation into safety assessments?

The International Life Sciences Institute, Health and Environmental Sciences Institute sponsored a workshop entitled "State of the Science: Evaluating Epigenetic Changes," hosted by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, 28-30 October 2009. The goal was to evaluate and enhance the scientific knowledge base regarding epigenetics and its role in disease, including potential relationships between epigenetic changes and transgenerational effects. A distinguishing aspect of the workshop was the highly interactive discussion session on the final morning. Meeting participants formed breakout groups (with representation from academia, industry, and government in each group) and were tasked with integrating their previous knowledge of epigenetics with what was learned during the workshop. The participants addressed the issue of what needs to be known prior to thinking about incorporating an epigenetic evaluation into safety assessment. To this end, the breakout groups were asked to address the following questions: (1) What model systems might be employed to evaluate the ability of a chemical to produce an epigenetic change (affecting the F1 and/or F3 generation); (2) What end points/targets might be evaluated; (3) What techniques might be employed; and (4) Regulatory Perspective: When is it appropriate to incorporate "new" science, in this case epigenetics, into the regulatory process? What does one need to know, what are the pitfalls and how might these be overcome/avoided? The basis of this paper is a synopsis of these discussions. The workshop highlighted the fact that the field of epigenetics is evolving at a very rapid pace and indicated that a great deal needs to be learned prior to being able to rationally incorporate an epigenetic evaluation into safety assessment. The value of the workshop is that it called attention to key data/knowledge gaps that should serve to focus attention on the areas where research and new thinking are needed to better understand epigenetics and its relationship to safety assessment.

Current challenges in the evaluation of cardiac safety during drug development: translational medicine meets the Critical Path Initiative.

In October 2008, in a public forum organized by the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium and the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, leaders from government, the pharmaceutical industry, and academia convened in Bethesda, MD, to discuss current challenges in evaluation of short- and long-term cardiovascular safety during drug development. The current paradigm for premarket evaluation of cardiac safety begins with preclinical animal modeling and progresses to clinical biomarker or biosignature assays. Preclinical evaluations have clear limitations but provide an important opportunity to identify safety hazards before administration of potential new drugs to human subjects. Discussants highlighted the need to identify, develop, and validate serum and electrocardiogram biomarkers indicative of early drug-induced myocardial toxicity and proarrhythmia. Specifically, experts identified a need to build consensus regarding the use and interpretation of troponin assays in preclinical evaluation of myocardial toxicity. With respect to proarrhythmia, the panel emphasized a need for better qualitative and quantitative biomarkers for arrhythmogenicity, including more streamlined human thorough QT study designs and a universal definition of the end of the T wave. Toward many of these ends, large shared data repositories and a more seamless integration of preclinical and clinical testing could facilitate the development of novel approaches to both cardiac safety biosignatures. In addition, more thorough and efficient early clinical studies could enable better estimates of cardiovascular risk and better inform phase II and phase III trial design. Participants also emphasized the importance of establishing formal guidelines for data standards and transparency in postmarketing surveillance. Priority pursuit of these consensus-based directions should facilitate both safer drugs and accelerated access to new drugs, as concomitant public health benefits.

A HESI consortium approach to assess the human predictive value of non-clinical repolarization assays.

Drug-induced ventricular arrhythmia and Torsades de Pointes remain a serious public health issues in bringing safe new pharmaceuticals to the market place. Under the auspices of the International Life Science Institute (ILSI)-Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI), a consortium involving representatives from pharmaceutical companies, regulatory agencies and opinion leaders from the scientific and medical research communities has been initiated. The objectives are (1) to assess the concordance between signals in non-clinical repolarization assays and clinical QT interval prolongation; (2) to investigate the mechanisms for any discrepancy identified between non-clinical and clinical results and to determine viable and successful alternative approaches to identify these compounds; and (3) to assess the proarrhythmic potential of such compounds. At present, the consortium is conducting a retrospective analysis of non-clinical and clinical data from both FDA and contributing companies' databases and supplementing with a literature review. The overall objectives of these initial efforts are to establish a quantitative integrated risk assessment for each compound; to define criteria for concordance and apply them to the database in order to identify non-concordant compounds.

Proceedings of a workshop on DNA adducts: biological significance and applications to risk assessment Washington, DC, April 13-14, 2004.

In April 2004, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, a branch of the International Life Sciences Institute, with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, organized a workshop to discuss the biological significance of DNA adducts. Workshop speakers and attendees included leading international experts from government, academia, and industry in the field of adduct detection and interpretation. The workshop initially examined the relationship between measured adduct levels in the context of exposure and dose. This was followed by a discussion on the complex response of cells to deal with genotoxic insult in complex, interconnected, and interdependent repair pathways. One of the major objectives of the workshop was to address the recurring question about the mechanistic and toxicological relevance of low-concentration measured adducts and the presentations in the session entitled "Can low levels of DNA adducts predict adverse outcomes?" served as catalysts for further discussions on this subject during the course of the workshop. Speakers representing the regulatory community and industry reviewed the value, current practices, and limitations of utilizing DNA adduct data in risk assessment and addressed a number of practical questions pertaining to these issues. While no consensus statement emerged on the biological significance of low levels of DNA adducts, the workshop concluded by identifying the need for more experimental data to address this important question. One of the recommendations stemming from this workshop was the need to develop an interim "decision-logic" or framework to guide the integration of DNA adduct data in the risk assessment process. HESI has recently formed a subcommittee consisting of experts in the field and other key stakeholders to address this recommendation as well as to identify specific research projects that could help advance the understanding of the biological significance of low levels of DNA adducts.

Toxicogenomics in risk assessment: an overview of an HESI collaborative research program.

The value of genomic approaches in hypothesis generation is being realized as a tool for understanding toxicity and consequently contributing to an assessment of drug and chemical safety. In 1999 the membership of the International Life Sciences Institute Health and Environmental Sciences Institute formed a committee to develop a collaborative scientific program to address issues, challenges, and opportunities afforded by the emerging field of toxicogenomics. Experts and advisors from academia and government laboratories participate on the committee, along with approximately 30 corporate member organizations from the pharmaceutical, agrochemical, chemical, and consumer products industries. The committee has designed, conducted, and analyzed numerous toxicogenomic experiments within the broad fields of hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and genotoxicity. The considerable body of data generated by these programs has been instrumental in increasing understanding of sources of biological and technical variability in the alignment of toxicant-induced transcription changes with the accepted mechanism of action of these agents and the challenges in the consistent analysis and sharing of the voluminous data sets generated by these approaches. Recognizing the importance of standardized microarray data formats and public repository databases as the mechanism by which microarray data can be compared and interpreted by the scientific community, the committee has partnered with the European Bioinformatics Institute to develop a database to house the data generated by its collaborative research.