Hepatitis A Virus Infection in Cynomolgus Monkeys Confounds the Safety Evaluation of a Drug Candidate.

In a 3-month toxicity study in cynomolgus monkeys at a European contract laboratory, animals were infected with HAV, initially resulting in hepatic injury being incorrectly attributed to the test compound. Elevated serum ALT/AST/GLDH (5- to 10-fold) were noted in individual animals from all groups including controls, with no apparent dose, exposure, or time-related relationship. Liver histopathology revealed minimal to slight inflammatory cell accumulation in periportal zones of most animals, and minimal to slight hepatocyte degeneration/necrosis in 10/42 animals from all groups. As these findings were more pronounced in 6 drug-treated animals, including 2/6 in the low dose group, the draft report concluded: "treatment-related hepatotoxicity at all dose levels precluded determination of a NOAEL." However, the unusual pattern of hepatotoxicity suggested a factor other than drug exposure might have caused the hepatic effects. Therefore, snap-frozen liver samples were tested for hepatitis viruses using a PCR method. Tests for hepatitis B, C, and E virus were negative; however, 20/42 samples were positive for hepatitis A virus (HAV). Infection was strongly associated with increased serum ALT/GLDH, and/or hepatocyte degeneration/necrosis. Re-evaluation of the study in light of these data concluded that the hepatic injury was not drug-related. A subsequent 6-month toxicology study in HAV-vaccinated cynomolgus monkeys confirmed the absence of hepatotoxicity. Identification of HAV infection supported progression of the drug candidate into later clinical trials. Although rarely investigated, subclinical HAV infection has occasionally been reported in laboratory primates, including those used for toxicology studies and it may be more prevalent than the literature indicates.

Practical Considerations in Determining Adversity and the No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level (NOAEL) in Nonclinical Safety Studies: Challenges, Perspectives and Case Studies.

Determining the adverse nature of findings from nonclinical safety studies often poses a challenge for the key stakeholders responsible for interpreting the results of definitive toxicity studies in support of pharmaceutical product development. Although there are instances in which responses to treatment clearly indicate intolerability or tissue injury associated with dysfunction; in practice, more often there is uncertainty in characterizing an effect of drug treatment as adverse or not. This is due to the inherent variability in responses of biological test systems to toxicological insults, leaving the ultimate analyses of adversity to individual interpretation and subjectivity. This article is a follow-up to the workshop entitled, "Adverse or Not Adverse?: Thinking process behind adversity determination during nonclinical drug development," conducted at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology, March 2019 in Baltimore, MD. In this paper, we further discuss and incorporate the perspectives of authors representing different roles, such as Study Director, Study Pathologist, Pharmacology/Toxicology Reviewer (U.S. Food and Drug Administration), and Sponsor in the determination and use of adversity. We also present a practical stepwise approach as an aid in this assessment, and further apply these principles to discuss 10 case studies with different therapeutic modalities and unique challenges.