ABSTRACT
Though the portfolio of medicines that are extending and improving the lives of patients continues to grow, drug discovery and development remains a challenging business on its best day. Safety liabilities are a significant contributor to development attrition where the costliest liabilities to both drug developers and patients emerge in late development or post-marketing. Animal studies are an important and influential contributor to the current drug discovery and development paradigm intending to provide evidence that a novel drug candidate can be used safely and effectively in human volunteers and patients. However, translational gaps-such as toxicity in patients not predicted by animal studies-have prompted efforts to improve their effectiveness, especially in safety assessment. More holistic monitoring and "digitalization" of animal studies has the potential to enrich study outcomes leading to datasets that are more computationally accessible, translationally relevant, replicable, and technically efficient. Continuous monitoring of animal behavior and physiology enables longitudinal assessment of drug effects, detection of effects during the animal's sleep and wake cycles and the opportunity to detect health or welfare events earlier. Automated measures can also mitigate human biases and reduce subjectivity. Reinventing a conservative, standardized, and traditional paradigm like drug safety assessment requires the collaboration and contributions of a broad and multi-disciplinary stakeholder group. In this perspective, we review the current state of the field and discuss opportunities to improve current approaches by more fully leveraging the power of sensor technologies, artificial intelligence (AI), and animal behavior in a home cage environment.
ABSTRACT
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.
