Appropriate in vivo follow-up assays to an in vitro bacterial reverse mutation (Ames) test positive investigational drug candidate (active pharmaceutical ingredient), drug-related metabolite, or drug-related impurity

Evaluation of the nitrosamine impurities of ACE inhibitors using computational, in vitro, and in vivo methods demonstrate no genotoxic potential

Evaluation and mitigation of the potential carcinogenic risks associated with nitrosamines in marketed pharmaceutical products are areas of interest for pharmaceutical companies and health authorities alike. Significant progress has been made to establish acceptable intake (AI) levels for N-nitrosamine drug substance-related impurities (NDSRIs) using SAR, however some compounds require experimental data to support derivation of a recommended AI. Many angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, identified by the suffix "pril," have secondary amines that can potentially react to form nitrosamines. Here we consider a structural assessment and metabolism data, coupled with comprehensive in vitro and in vivo (mouse) genotoxicity testing to evaluate this particular class of nitrosamines. N-nitroso ramipril and N-nitroso quinapril, both of which are predicted to have inhibited nitrosamine bioactivation due to steric hinderance and branching at the α-position were non-genotoxic in the in vivo liver comet assay and non-mutagenic in the in vivo Big Blue® mutation and duplex sequencing assays. Predicted metabolism along with in vitro metabolism data and quantum chemical calculations related to DNA interactions offer a molecular basis for the negative results observed in both in vitro and in vivo testing. These nitrosamines are concluded to be non-mutagenic and non-carcinogenic; therefore, they should be controlled according to ICH Q3B guidance. Furthermore, these results for N-nitroso ramipril and N-nitroso quinapril should be considered when evaluating the appropriate AI and control strategy for other structurally similar "pril" NDSRIs.

Mutagenic and genotoxic in silico QSAR prediction of dimer impurity of gliflozins; canagliflozin, dapaglifozin, and emphagliflozin and in vitro evaluation by Ames and micronucleus test

Canagliflozin, Dapagliflozin, and Empagliflozin, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, are indicated for managing type II diabetes. Although the genotoxicity profiles of these drugs are well-explored, limited information exists regarding the genotoxic potential of their impurities. In this investigation, the dimer impurities of Canagliflozin, Dapagliflozin, and Empagliflozin underwent both in silico and in vitro assessments for mutagenic potential. Tester strains of Salmonella typhimurium and Escherichia coli were subjected to the Ames test, utilizing concentrations of up to 1 µg per plate, with and without the presence of metabolic activation. Evaluation of micronucleus induction in TK6 cells was conducted through a micronucleus test, exploring concentrations up to 500 µg/mL, with or without the presence of exogenous metabolic activation. Under the specific test conditions, the dimer impurities of Canagliflozin, Dapagliflozin, and Empagliflozin showed no evidence of mutagenicity or clastrogenicity, establishing their in vitro classification as nonmutagenic. These findings align with negative in silico predictions from quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) analyses for mutagenicity and genotoxicity of the dimer impurities. Collectively, these studies contribute clinically relevant safety information by confirming that the dimer impurities of Canagliflozin, Dapagliflozin, and Empagliflozin are nonmutagenic and nongenotoxic, emphasizing the consistency between in silico and in vitro data.

Developing a pragmatic consensus procedure supporting the ICH S1B(R1) weight of evidence carcinogenicity assessment

The ICH S1B carcinogenicity global testing guideline has been recently revised with a novel addendum that describes a comprehensive integrated Weight of Evidence (WoE) approach to determine the need for a 2-year rat carcinogenicity study. In the present work, experts from different organizations have joined efforts to standardize as much as possible a procedural framework for the integration of evidence associated with the different ICH S1B(R1) WoE criteria. The framework uses a pragmatic consensus procedure for carcinogenicity hazard assessment to facilitate transparent, consistent, and documented decision-making and it discusses best-practices both for the organization of studies and presentation of data in a format suitable for regulatory review. First, it is acknowledged that the six WoE factors described in the addendum form an integrated network of evidence within a holistic assessment framework that is used synergistically to analyze and explain safety signals. Second, the proposed standardized procedure builds upon different considerations related to the primary sources of evidence, mechanistic analysis, alternative methodologies and novel investigative approaches, metabolites, and reliability of the data and other acquired information. Each of the six WoE factors is described highlighting how they can contribute evidence for the overall WoE assessment. A suggested reporting format to summarize the cross-integration of evidence from the different WoE factors is also presented. This work also notes that even if a 2-year rat study is ultimately required, creating a WoE assessment is valuable in understanding the specific factors and levels of human carcinogenic risk better than have been identified previously with the 2-year rat bioassay alone.

Assessment of the three-test genetic toxicology battery for groundwater metabolites

The two-test in vitro battery for genotoxicity testing (Ames and micronucleus) has in the majority of cases replaced the three-test battery (as two-test plus mammalian cell gene mutation assay) for the routine testing of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and agrochemical metabolites originating from food and feed as well as from water treatment. The guidance for testing agrochemical groundwater metabolites, however, still relies on the three-test battery. Data collated in this study from 18 plant protection and related materials highlights the disparity between the often negative Ames and in vitro chromosome aberration data and frequently positive in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation assays. Sixteen of the 18 collated materials with complete datasets were Ames negative, and overall had negative outcomes in in vitro chromosome damage tests (weight of evidence from multiple tests). Mammalian cell gene mutation assays (HPRT and/or mouse lymphoma assay (MLA)) were positive in at least one test for every material with this data. Where both MLA and HPRT tests were performed on the same material, the HPRT seemed to give fewer positive responses. In vivo follow-up tests included combinations of comet assays, unscheduled DNA synthesis, and transgenic rodent gene mutation assays, all gave negative outcomes. The inclusion of mammalian cell gene mutation assays in a three-test battery for groundwater metabolites is therefore not justified and leads to unnecessary in vivo follow-up testing.

Genotoxicity assessment in HepaRG™ cells as a new approach methodology follow up to a positive response in the human TK6 cell micronucleus assay: Naphthalene case study

We are evaluating the use of metabolically competent HepaRG™ cells combined with CometChip® for DNA damage and the micronucleus (MN) assay as a New Approach Methodology (NAM) alternative to animals for follow up genotoxicity assessment to in vitro positive genotoxic response. Naphthalene is genotoxic in human TK6 cells inducing a nonlinear dose-response for the induction of micronuclei in the presence of rat liver S9. of naphthalene. In HepaRG™ cells, naphthalene genotoxicity was assessed using either 6 (CometChip™) or 12 concentrations of naphthalene (MN assay) with the top dose used for assessment of genotoxicity for the Comet and MN assay was 1.25 and 1.74 mM respectively, corresponding to approximately 45% cell survival. In contrast to human TK6 cell with S9, naphthalene was not genotoxic in either the HepaRG™ MN assay or the Comet assay using CometChip®. The lack of genotoxicity in both the MN and comet assays in HepaRG™ cells is likely due to Phase II enzymes removing phenols preventing further bioactivation to quinones and efficient detoxication of naphthalene quinones or epoxides by glutathione conjugation. In contrast to CYP450 mediated metabolism, these Phase II enzymes are inactive in rat liver S9 due to lack of appropriate cofactors causing a positive genotoxic response. Rat liver S9-derived BMD10 over-predicts naphthalene genotoxicity when compared to the negative genotoxic response observed in HepaRG™ cells. Metabolically competent hepatocyte models like HepaRG™ cells should be considered as human-relevant NAMs for use genotoxicity assessments to reduce reliance on rodents.