Utility of the auditory brainstem response evaluation in non-clinical drug safety evaluations

Ototoxicity: a high risk to auditory function that needs to be monitored in drug development

Hearing loss constitutes a major global health concern impacting approximately 1.5 billion people worldwide. Its incidence is undergoing a substantial surge with some projecting that by 2050, a quarter of the global population will experience varying degrees of hearing deficiency. Environmental factors such as aging, exposure to loud noise, and the intake of ototoxic medications are implicated in the onset of acquired hearing loss. Ototoxicity resulting in inner ear damage is a leading cause of acquired hearing loss worldwide. This could be minimized or avoided by early testing of hearing functions in the preclinical phase of drug development. While the assessment of ototoxicity is well defined for drug candidates in the hearing field - required for drugs that are administered by the otic route and expected to reach the middle or inner ear during clinical use - ototoxicity testing is not required for all other therapeutic areas. Unfortunately, this has resulted in more than 200 ototoxic marketed medications. The aim of this publication is to raise awareness of drug-induced ototoxicity and to formulate some recommendations based on available guidelines and own experience. Ototoxicity testing programs should be adapted to the type of therapy, its indication (targeting the ear or part of other medications classes being potentially ototoxic), and the number of assets to test. For multiple molecules and/or multiple doses, screening options are available: in vitro (otic cell assays), ex vivo (cochlear explant), and in vivo (in zebrafish). In assessing the ototoxicity of a candidate drug, it is good practice to compare its ototoxicity to that of a well-known control drug of a similar class. Screening assays provide a streamlined and rapid method to know whether a drug is generally safe for inner ear structures. Mammalian animal models provide a more detailed characterization of drug ototoxicity, with a possibility to localize and quantify the damage using functional, behavioral, and morphological read-outs. Complementary histological measures are routinely conducted notably to quantify hair cells loss with cochleogram. Ototoxicity studies can be performed in rodents (mice, rats), guinea pigs and large species. However, in undertaking, or at the very least attempting, all preclinical investigations within the same species, is crucial. This encompasses starting with pharmacokinetics and pharmacology efficacy studies and extending through to toxicity studies. In life read-outs include Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) and Distortion Product OtoAcoustic Emissions (DPOAE) measurements that assess the activity and integrity of sensory cells and the auditory nerve, reflecting sensorineural hearing loss. Accurate, reproducible, and high throughput ABR measures are fundamental to the quality and success of these preclinical trials. As in humans, in vivo otoscopic evaluations are routinely carried out to observe the tympanic membrane and auditory canal. This is often done to detect signs of inflammation. The cochlea is a tonotopic structure. Hair cell responsiveness is position and frequency dependent, with hair cells located close to the cochlea apex transducing low frequencies and those at the base transducing high frequencies. The cochleogram aims to quantify hair cells all along the cochlea and consequently determine hair cell loss related to specific frequencies. This measure is then correlated with the ABR & DPOAE results. Ototoxicity assessments evaluate the impact of drug candidates on the auditory and vestibular systems, de-risk hearing loss and balance disorders, define a safe dose, and optimize therapeutic benefits. These types of studies can be initiated during early development of a therapeutic solution, with ABR and otoscopic evaluations. Depending on the mechanism of action of the compound, studies can include DPOAE and cochleogram. Later in the development, a GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) ototoxicity study may be required based on otic related route of administration, target, or known potential otic toxicity.

Auditory brainstem responses are resistant to pharmacological modulation in Sprague Dawley wild-type and Neurexin1α knockout rats

Sensory processing in the auditory brainstem can be studied with auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) across species. There is, however, a limited understanding of ABRs as tools to assess the effect of pharmacological interventions. Therefore, we set out to understand how pharmacological agents that target key transmitter systems of the auditory brainstem circuitry affect ABRs in rats. Given previous studies, demonstrating that Nrxn1α KO Sprague Dawley rats show substantial auditory processing deficits and altered sensitivity to GABAergic modulators, we used both Nrxn1α KO and wild-type littermates in our study. First, we probed how different commonly used anesthetics (isoflurane, ketamine/xylazine, medetomidine) affect ABRs. In the next step, we assessed the effects of different pharmacological compounds (diazepam, gaboxadol, retigabine, nicotine, baclofen, and bitopertin) either under isoflurane or medetomidine anesthesia. We found that under our experimental conditions, ABRs are largely unaffected by diverse pharmacological modulation. Significant modulation was observed with (i) nicotine, affecting the late ABRs components at 90 dB stimulus intensity under isoflurane anesthesia in both genotypes and (ii) retigabine, showing a slight decrease in late ABRs deflections at 80 dB stimulus intensity, mainly in isoflurane anesthetized Nrxn1α KO rats. Our study suggests that ABRs in anesthetized rats are resistant to a wide range of pharmacological modulators, which has important implications for the applicability of ABRs to study auditory brainstem physiology.

CD4 T-cell depletion prevents Lassa fever associated hearing loss in the mouse model

Lassa virus (LASV) is the causative agent of Lassa fever (LF), which presents as a lethal hemorrhagic disease in severe cases. LASV-induced hearing loss in survivors is a huge socioeconomic burden, however, the mechanism(s) leading to hearing loss is unknown. In this study, we evaluate in a mouse LF model the auditory function using auditory brainstem response (ABR) and distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) to determine the mechanisms underlying LASV-induced hearing loss. In the process, we pioneered measures of ABR and DPOAE tests in rodents in biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) facilities. Our T cell depletion studies demonstrated that CD4 T-cells play an important role in LASV-induced hearing loss, while CD8 T-cells are critical for the pathogenicity in the acute phase of LASV infection. Results presented in this study may help to develop future countermeasures against acute disease and LASV-induced hearing loss.

The shifting landscape of safety pharmacology in 2015

The relative importance of the discipline of safety pharmacology (which integrates physiology, pharmacologyand toxicology) has evolved since the incorporation of the Safety Pharmacology Society (SPS) as an entity on August 10, 2000. Safety pharmacology (SP), as a synthesis of these other fields of knowledge, is concerned with characterizing the safety profile (or potential undesirable pharmacodynamic effects) of new chemical entities (NCEs) and biologicals. Initially focused on the issue of drug-induced QT prolongation it has developed into an important discipline over the past 15years with expertise beyond its initial focus on torsades de pointes (TdP). It has become a repository for interrogation of models for drug safety studies and innovative non-clinical model development, validation and implementation. Thus, while safety pharmacology consists of the triumvirate obligatory cardiovascular, central nervous system (CNS) and respiratory system core battery studies it also involves assessing drug effects on numerous other physiological systems (e.g., ocular, auditory, renal, gastrointestinal, blood, immune) leveraging emerging new technologies in a wide range of non-clinical drug safety testing models. As with previous editorials that preface the themed issue on safety pharmacology methods published in the Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods (JPTM), we highlight here the content derived from the most recent (2014) SPS meeting held in Washington, DC. The dynamics of the discipline remain fervent and method development, extension and refinement are reflected in the content. This issue of the JPTM continues the tradition of providing a publication summary of articles (reviews, commentaries and methods) with impact on the discipline of safety pharmacology.