Science-Based Approach to Harmonize Contraception Recommendations in Clinical Trials and Pharmaceutical Labels.

This review presents a European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Association/PreClinical Development Expert Group (EFPIA-PDEG) topic group consensus on a data-driven approach to harmonized contraception recommendations for clinical trial protocols and product labeling. There is no international agreement in pharmaceutical clinical trial protocols or product labeling on when/if female and/or male contraception is warranted and for how long after the last dose. This absence of consensus has resulted in different recommendations among regions. For most pharmaceuticals, contraception recommendations are generally based exclusively on nonclinical data and/or mechanism. For clinical trials, contraception is the default position and is maintained for women throughout clinical development, whereas appropriate information can justify removing male contraception. Conversely, contraception is only recommended in product labeling when warranted. A base case rationale is proposed for whether or not female and/or male contraception is/are warranted, using available genotoxicity and developmental toxicity data. Contraception is generally warranted for both male and female subjects treated with mutagenic pharmaceuticals. We propose as a starting point that contraception is not typically warranted when the margin is 10-fold or greater between clinical exposure at the maximum recommended human dose and exposure at the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for purely aneugenic pharmaceuticals and for pharmaceuticals that induce fetal malformations or embryo-fetal lethality. Other factors are discussed, including contraception methods, pregnancy testing, drug clearance, options for managing the absence of a developmental toxicity NOAEL, drug-drug interactions, radiopharmaceuticals, and other drug modalities. Overall, we present a data-driven rationale that can serve as a basis for consistent contraception recommendations in clinical trials and in product labeling across regions.

Nonclinical Safety and Toxicology.

Nonclinical safety pharmacology and toxicology testing of drug candidates assess the potential adverse effects caused by the drug in relation to its intended use in humans. Hazards related to a drug have to be identified and the potential risks at the intended exposure have to be evaluated in comparison to the potential benefit of the drug. Preclinical safety is thus an integral part of drug discovery and drug development. It still causes significant attrition during drug development.Therefore, there is a need for smart selection of drug candidates in drug discovery including screening of important safety endpoints. In the recent years,there was significant progress in computational and in vitro technology allowing in silico assessment as well as high-throughput screening of some endpoints at very early stages of discovery. Despite all this progress, in vivo evaluation of drug candidates is still an important part to safety testing. The chapter provides an overview on the most important areas of nonclinical safety screening during drug discovery of small molecules.

Vehicle Systems and Excipients Used in Minipig Drug Development Studies.

Minipigs have been used for dermal drug development studies for decades, and they are currently more frequently considered as the second nonrodent species for pivotal nonclinical studies, in lieu of the dog or nonhuman primate, for compounds delivered via standard systemic routes of administration. Little is known about the tolerability of different excipients in minipigs; sharing knowledge of excipient tolerability and compositions previously used in nonclinical studies may avoid testing of inadequate formulations, thereby contributing to reduced animal usage. This article reviews vehicles employed in the Göttingen(®)minipig based on the combined experience from a number of pharmaceutical companies and contract research organizations. The review includes vehicles tolerated for single or multiple dosing by the Göttingen minipig, some of which are not appropriate for administration to other common nonrodent species (e.g., dogs). By presenting these data for dermal, oral, subcutaneous, and intravenous routes of administration, studies to qualify these vehicles in minipigs can be minimized or avoided. Additionally, investigators may more frequently consider using the minipig in place of higher species if the tolerability of a vehicle in the minipig is known.

A global pharmaceutical company initiative: an evidence-based approach to define the upper limit of body weight loss in short term toxicity studies.

Short term toxicity studies are conducted in animals to provide information on major adverse effects typically at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Such studies are important from a scientific and ethical perspective as they are used to make decisions on progression of potential candidate drugs, and to set dose levels for subsequent regulatory studies. The MTD is usually determined by parameters such as clinical signs, reductions in body weight and food consumption. However, these assessments are often subjective and there are no published criteria to guide the selection of an appropriate MTD. Even where an objective measurement exists, such as body weight loss (BWL), there is no agreement on what level constitutes an MTD. A global initiative including 15 companies, led by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), has shared data on BWL in toxicity studies to assess the impact on the animal and the study outcome. Information on 151 studies has been used to develop an alert/warning system for BWL in short term toxicity studies. The data analysis supports BWL limits for short term dosing (up to 7days) of 10% for rat and dog and 6% for non-human primates (NHPs).

Regulatory acceptability of the minipig in the development of pharmaceuticals, chemicals and other products.

As part of the RETHINK European FP6 Project an overview of the acceptability and usefulness of minipigs has been carried out in the regulatory arenas of human and veterinary pharmaceuticals, food additives, cosmetics, biocides and agrochemicals, chemicals and medical devices. The safety of new pharmaceuticals for human use should be tested in non-rodents, but the regulatory world is not too prescriptive regarding the choice of species. The choice is most often dogs through long tradition. When dogs are not appropriate, in many cases non-human primates are chosen as an alternative. From information in the public domain as well as literature from the EMA and FDA, it is clear that minipigs have already been identified as suitable to take the role of non-rodent species in toxicity testing of pharmaceutical products. In the field of foodstuffs, the pig is used more extensively because of the apparent similarity in the omnivorous food pattern and digestive tract between humans and pigs. The extensive use of pigs in this field provides historical data. In the field of medical devices the ISO Guidelines indicate that the pig is regarded as a suitable animal model because of its haematological and cardiovascular similarities to man. The pig is also mentioned as suitable for testing local effects after implantation. Political and societal support for using nonhuman primates is decreasing, and it is an appropriate time to consider the role of the minipig. We have reviewed the costs of testing in minipigs, and these are not significantly higher than the costs for a study in dogs. Economical reasons should therefore not be used to argue against the use of minipigs instead of dogs or monkeys. For most purposes, minipigs may be considered an acceptable choice as non-rodent species, provided adequate justification for this choice is made.

A European pharmaceutical company initiative challenging the regulatory requirement for acute toxicity studies in pharmaceutical drug development.

Regulatory guidelines indicate acute toxicity studies in animals are considered necessary for pharmaceuticals intended for human use. This is the only study type where lethality is mentioned as an endpoint. The studies are carried out, usually in rodents, to support marketing of new drugs and to identify the minimum lethal dose. A European initiative including 18 companies has undertaken an evidence-based review of acute toxicity studies and assessed the value of the data generated. Preclinical and clinical information was shared on 74 compounds. The analysis indicated acute toxicity data was not used to (i) terminate drugs from development (ii) support dose selection for repeat dose studies in animals or (iii) to set doses in the first clinical trials in humans. The conclusion of the working group is that acute toxicity studies are not needed prior to first clinical trials in humans. Instead, information can be obtained from other studies, which are performed at more relevant doses for humans and are already an integral part of drug development. The conclusions have been discussed and agreed with representatives of regulatory bodies from the US, Japan and Europe.

Optimising the design of preliminary toxicity studies for pharmaceutical safety testing in the dog.

A working party, comprising two animal welfare organisations and some 12 pharmaceutical companies in Europe, was established to minimise the use of the dog in safety testing. As first step, the participants defined the major objectives of preliminary dose-range finding/MTD toxicity studies in non-rodents, defined the principles and requirements for this study type and agreed on a proposal for an optimised study design, based on collective experience of conducting such studies in industry, involving an evaluation of 100 individual study data sets. The suggested study design is explained and described, and reflects current best practice in the pharmaceutical industry in Europe. The implementation of such an optimised design is believed to result in a reduction in the overall numbers of animals used for this purpose, without jeopardising the scientific rationale and usefulness of the studies for informing the conduct of later regulatory studies.