Exploring Greater Flexibility for Chronic Toxicity Study Designs to Support Human Safety Assessment While Balancing 3Rs Considerations.

Chronic repeated-dose toxicity studies are required to support long-term dosing in late-stage clinical trials, providing data to adequately characterize adverse effects of potential concern for human safety. Different regulatory guidances for the design and duration of chronic toxicity studies are available, with flexibility in approaches often adopted for specific drug modalities. These guidances may provide opportunities to reduce time, cost, compound requirement and animal use within drug development programs if applied more broadly and considered outside their current scopes of use. This article summarizes presentations from a workshop at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the American College of Toxicology (ACT) in November 2022, discussing different approaches for chronic toxicity studies. A recent industry collaboration between the Netherlands Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) and UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) illustrated current practices and the value of chronic toxicity studies for monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and evaluated a weight of evidence (WOE) model where a 3-month study rather than a 6-month study might be adequate. Other topics included potential opportunities for single-species chronic toxicity studies for small molecules, peptides and oligonucleotides and whether a 6-month duration non-rodent study can be used more routinely than a 9-month study (similar to ICH S6(R1) for biological products). Also addressed were opportunities to optimize recovery animal use if warranted and whether restriction to one study only (if at all) can be applied more widely within and outside ICH S6(R1).

Re-evaluating the need for chronic toxicity studies with therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, using a weight of evidence approach.

To support registration of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for chronic indications, 6-month toxicity studies have historically been conducted. Experience with mAb development has shown a relatively benign and well-understood safety profile for this class, with most toxicity findings anticipated based on pharmacology. We evaluated whether a 6-month toxicity study is necessary to assess the long-term safety of mAbs. Data on First-in-Human (FIH)-enabling and chronic toxicity studies were shared for 142 mAbs submitted by 11 companies. Opportunities to further optimize study designs to reduce animal usage were identified. For 71% of mAbs, no toxicities or no new toxicities were noted in chronic studies compared to FIH-enabling study findings. New toxicities of potential concern for human safety or that changed trial design were identified in 13.5% of cases, with 7% being considered critical and 2% leading to program termination. An iterative, weight-of-evidence model which considers factors that influence the overall risk for a mAb to cause toxicity was developed. This model enables an evidence-based justification, suggesting when 3-month toxicity studies are likely sufficient to support late-stage clinical development and registration for some mAbs.

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.

Exploring the Definition of "Similar Toxicities": Case Studies Illustrating Industry and Regulatory Interpretation of ICH S6(R1) for Long-Term Toxicity Studies in One or Two Species.

ICH S6 (R1) states that safety evaluation of biotherapeutics should normally include 2 relevant species when available (i.e., a rodent and non-rodent species in which the test material is pharmacologically active), at least for short-term toxicology studies (generally supporting Phase I trials). For subsequent long-term toxicology studies (e.g., chronic studies up to 6 months dosing duration), there are options to reduce to only one species when justified, including when the mechanism of action of the biologic is well-understood or the toxicity findings in the short-term studies are "similar" in both the rodent and non-rodent species. Across the industry, around 25 to 33% of biologics assess multiple species within short-term toxicity studies but it is often unclear how different companies and regulators are applying the ICH S6 (R1) principles of "similar toxicity profiles" to progress with either 1 or 2 species in the long-term studies, in particular whether the absence of toxicities is considered within this definition. Sponsors may potentially continue to use 2 species to avoid regulatory risk and potential delays in development timelines, representing missed opportunities for reducing animal use, particularly of non-human primates, during drug development.This article summarizes presentations from a symposium at the 41st Annual meeting of the American College of Toxicology (ACT) in November 2020, in which industry case studies and regulatory perspectives addressed considerations and decisions for using 1 or 2 species for long-term toxicity studies, highlighting any common themes or experience that could be applicable for use in future decision-making.

The Use of Minipigs for Preclinical Safety Assessment by the Pharmaceutical Industry: Results of an IQ DruSafe Minipig Survey.

The use of minipigs in preclinical safety testing of pharmaceuticals is considered an alternative to the more traditional dog and nonhuman primate (NHP) nonrodent species. Substantial evidence exists to suggest that the anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry of minipigs are similar enough to humans to consider them as valid nonrodent models for pharmaceutical safety testing. Since the utilization of minipigs was last assessed over 5 years ago, the Preclinical Safety Leadership Group (DruSafe) of the International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development conducted this survey to provide an updated assessment of the utility, perceived value, and impediments to the use of minipigs in preclinical safety testing. Of the 32 participating members of DruSafe, 15 responded to the survey representing both large and small companies. Respondents indicated that the minipig has been utilized mostly for short-term safety assessment studies with dermal, oral, and parenteral routes of administration. Minipigs are widely accepted as appropriate models for cardiovascular assessments and have been used to a limited extent for reproductive toxicology testing. Overall responses indicated that safety testing for large molecules using this species is relatively low due to a lack of background data, reagents or biomarkers, concerns regarding immune system characterization and poor suitability for developmental toxicity assessments. Most companies utilized contract research organizations for definitive safety toxicity assessment studies. Conclusions of this survey indicate that minipig is an acceptable nonrodent species largely limited to studies using small molecules, primarily dermal products, and results are comparable to those reported 5 years ago.

Strategies and Recommendations for Using a Data-Driven and Risk-Based Approach in the Selection of First-in-Human Starting Dose: An International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development (IQ) Assessment.

Various approaches to first-in-human (FIH) starting dose selection for new molecular entities (NMEs) are designed to minimize risk to trial subjects. One approach uses the minimum anticipated biological effect level (MABEL), which is a conservative method intended to maximize subject safety and designed primarily for NMEs having high perceived safety risks. However, there is concern that the MABEL approach is being inappropriately used for lower risk molecules with negative impacts on drug development and time to patient access. In addition, ambiguity exists in how MABEL is defined and the methods used to determine it. The International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development convened a working group to understand current use of MABEL and its impact on FIH starting dose selection, and to make recommendations for FIH dose selection going forward. An industry-wide survey suggested the achieved or estimated maximum tolerated dose, efficacious dose, or recommended phase II dose was > 100-fold higher than the MABEL-based starting dose for approximately one third of NMEs, including trials in patients. A decision tree and key risk factor table were developed to provide a consistent, data driven-based, and risk-based approach for selecting FIH starting doses.

An assessment of the central disposition of intranasally administered insulin lispro in the cerebrospinal fluid of healthy volunteers and beagle dogs.

Intranasally administered regular insulin and insulin aspart have shown cognitive benefit for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). To support development of intranasally administered insulin analogs for AD, the central disposition of intranasal insulin lispro in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of healthy volunteers was investigated. Healthy volunteers (N = 8) received two sequential doses of intranasal insulin lispro (48 or 80 IU followed by 160 IU) by Aero Pump in an open-label, single-period study with serial CSF and serum sampling over 5 hours after each dose. CSF insulin lispro was also measured in beagle dogs (N = 6/dose group) that received either 24 IU/kg (equivalent local nasal (IU/cm2) dose to the human 160 IU dose) or 192 IU/kg intranasally, using the same device. Insulin lispro was measured in the CSF and serum using a validated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method, and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated by standard noncompartmental methods. Intranasal administration of insulin lispro was well tolerated. Insulin lispro concentrations in the CSF of humans at all dose levels were below the limit of quantification. Serum insulin lispro concentrations were quantifiable only up to 1-2 hours in the majority of subjects. In contrast to insulin lispro in the CSF of humans, insulin lispro was detectable in the CSF at both dose levels in dogs, and serum concentrations of insulin lispro were generally higher in dogs than in healthy volunteers. The absence of insulin lispro in CSF from healthy volunteers and the lack of robust exposure-response analyses will hinder the development of intranasally administered insulin lispro for AD.

A review of the abuse potential assessment of atomoxetine: a nonstimulant medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

RATIONALE: Treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has for many years relied on psychostimulants, particularly various formulations of amphetamines and methylphenidate. These are central nervous system stimulants and are scheduled because of their abuse potential. Atomoxetine (atomoxetine hydrochloride; Strattera®) was approved in 2002 for treatment of ADHD, and was the first nonstimulant medication approved for this disorder. It was classified as an unscheduled medication indicating a low potential for abuse. However, the abuse potential of atomoxetine has not been reviewed. OBJECTIVES: In this article, we review the evidence regarding abuse potential of atomoxetine, a selective inhibitor of the presynaptic norepinephrine transporter, which is unscheduled/unrestricted in all countries where it is approved. METHODS: Results from receptor binding, in vitro electrophysiology, in vivo microdialysis, preclinical behavioral, and human laboratory studies have been reviewed. RESULTS: Atomoxetine has no appreciable affinity for, or action at, central receptors through which drugs of abuse typically act, i.e., dopamine transporters, GABA(A) receptors, and opioid µ receptors. In behavioral experiments in rodents, atomoxetine does not increase locomotor activity, and in drug discrimination studies, its profile is similar to that of drugs without abuse potential. Atomoxetine does not serve as a reinforcer in monkey self-administration studies, and human laboratory studies suggest that atomoxetine does not induce subjective effects indicative of abuse. CONCLUSION: Neurochemical, preclinical, and early clinical studies predicted and supported a lack of abuse potential of atomoxetine, which is consistent with the clinical trial and postmarketing spontaneous event data in the past 10 years.