Considerations on photochemical genotoxicity. II: report of the 2009 International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing Working Group.

A workshop to reappraise the previous IWGT recommendations for photogenotoxicity testing [E. Gocke, L. Muller, P.J. Guzzie, S. Brendler-Schwaab, S. Bulera, C.F. Chignell, L.M. Henderson, A. Jacobs, H. Murli, R.D. Snyder, N. Tanaka, Considerations on photochemical genotoxicity: report of the International Workshop on Genotoxicity Test Procedures working group, Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 35 (2000) 173-184] was recently held as part of the 5th International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) meeting in Basel, Switzerland (August 17-19, 2009). An Expert Panel was convened from regulatory, academic and industrial scientists (with several members serving on the original panel) and chaired by Dr Peter Kasper (BfArM, Germany). The aim of the workshop was to review progress made in photo(geno)toxicity testing over the past decade; a period which saw the introduction of several regulatory photosafety guidances in particular in Europe and the USA. Based on current regulatory guidelines a substantial proportion of compounds trigger the requirements for photosafety testing. Moreover, there has been growing concern within industry about the performance of the in vitro photosafety tests in the "real world" of compound development. Therefore, the expert group reviewed the status of the current regulatory guidance's and the impact these have had on compound development in the context of the various triggers for photosafety testing. In addition, the performance of photogenotoxicity assays (old and new) was discussed, particularly in view of reports of pseudophotoclastogencity. The Expert Panel finished with an assessment of the positioning of photogenotoxicity testing within a photosafety testing strategy. The most significant conclusion made by the Expert Panel was that photogenotoxicity testing should no longer be recommended as part of the standard photosafety testing strategy. In addition, progress was made on the refinement of triggers for photosafety testing. For example, there was support for harmonisation of methods to determine the Molar Extinction Coefficient (MEC) and a consensus agreement that there should be no requirement for testing of compounds with a MEC<1000Lmol(-1)cm(-1).

Strategy for genotoxicity testing--metabolic considerations.

The report from the 2002 International Workshop on Genotoxicity Tests (IWGT) Strategy Expert Group emphasized metabolic considerations as an important area to address in developing a common strategy for genotoxicity testing. A working group convened at the 2005 4th IWGT to discuss this area further and propose practical strategy recommendations. To propose a strategy, the working group reviewed: (1) the current status and deficiencies, including examples of carcinogens "missed" in genotoxicity testing, established shortcomings of the standard in vitro induced S9 activation system and drug metabolite case examples; (2) the current status of possible remedies, including alternative S9 sources, other external metabolism systems or genetically engineered test systems; (3) any existing positions or guidance. The working group established consensus principles to guide strategy development. Thus, a human metabolite of interest should be represented in genotoxicity and carcinogenicity testing, including evaluation of alternative genotoxicity in vitro metabolic activation or test systems, and the selection of a carcinogenicity test species showing appropriate biotransformation. Appropriate action triggers need to be defined based on the extent of human exposure, considering any structural knowledge of the metabolite, and when genotoxicity is observed upon in vitro testing in the presence of metabolic activation. These triggers also need to be considered in defining the timing of human pharmaceutical ADME assessments. The working group proposed two strategies to consider; a more proactive approach, which emphasizes early metabolism predictions to drive appropriate hazard assessment; and a retroactive approach to manage safety risks of a unique or "major" metabolite once identified and quantitated from human clinical ADME studies. In both strategies, the assessment of the genotoxic potential of a metabolite could include the use of an alternative or optimized in vitro metabolic activation system, or direct testing of an isolated or synthesized metabolite. The working group also identified specific areas where more data or experiences need to be gained to reach consensus. These included defining a discrete exposure action trigger for safety assessment and when direct testing of a metabolite of interest is warranted versus the use of an alternative in vitro activation system, a universal recommendation for the timing of human ADME studies for drug candidates and the positioning of metabolite structural knowledge (through in silico systems, literature, expert analysis) in supporting metabolite safety qualification. Lastly, the working group outlined future considerations for refining the initially proposed strategies. These included the need for further evaluation of the current in vitro genotoxicity testing protocols that can potentially perturb or reduce the level of metabolic activity (potential alterations in metabolism associated with both the use of some solvents to solubilize test chemicals and testing to the guidance limit dose), and proposing broader evaluations of alternative metabolic activation sources or engineered test systems to further challenge the suitability of (or replace) the current induced liver S9 activation source.