Mutagenicity assessment strategy for pharmaceutical intermediates to aid limit setting for occupational exposure

Toward regulatory acceptance and improving the prediction confidence of in silico approaches: a case study of genotoxicity

Introduction: Genotoxicity is an imperative component of the human health safety assessment of chemicals. Its secure forecast is of the utmost importance for all health prevention strategies and regulations.Areas covered: We surveyed several types of alternative, animal-free approaches ((quantitative) structure-activity relationship (Q)SAR, read-across, Adverse Outcome Pathway, Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment) for genotoxicity prediction within the needs of regulatory frameworks, putting special emphasis on data quality and uncertainties issues.Expert opinion: (Q)SAR models and read-across approaches for in vitro bacterial mutagenicity have sufficient reliability for use in prioritization processes, and as support in regulatory decisions in combination with other types of evidence. (Q)SARs and read-across methodologies for other genotoxicity endpoints need further improvements and should be applied with caution. It appears that there is still large room for improvement of genotoxicity prediction methods. Availability of well-curated high-quality databases, covering a broader chemical space, is one of the most important needs. Integration of in silico predictions with expert knowledge, weight-of-evidence-based assessment, and mechanistic understanding of genotoxicity pathways are other key points to be addressed for the generation of more accurate and trustable results.

Evaluation of the applicability of existing (Q)SAR models for predicting the genotoxicity of pesticides and similarity analysis related with genotoxicity of pesticides for facilitating of grouping and read across: An EFSA funded project

To facilitate the practical implementation of the guidance on the residue definition for dietary risk assessment, EFSA has organized an evaluation of applicability of existing in silico models for predicting the genotoxicity of pesticides and their metabolites, including literature survey, application of QSARs and development of Read Across methodologies. This paper summarizes the main results. For the Ames test, all (Q)SAR models generated statistically significant predictions, comparable with the experimental variability of the test. The reliability of the models for other assays/endpoints appears to be still far from optimality. Two new Read Across approaches were evaluated: Read Across was largely successful for predicting the Ames test results, but less for in vitro Chromosomal Aberrations. The worse results for non-Ames endpoints may be attributable to the several revisions of experimental protocols and evaluation criteria of results, that have made the databases qualitatively non-homogeneous and poorly suitable for modeling. Last, Parent/Metabolite structural differences (besides known Structural Alerts) that may, or may not cause changes in the Ames mutagenicity were identified and catalogued. The findings from this work are suitable for being integrated into Weight-of-Evidence and Tiered evaluation schemes. Areas needing further developments are pointed out.

Transitioning to composite bacterial mutagenicity models in ICH M7 (Q)SAR analyses

The International Council on Harmonisation (ICH) M7(R1) guideline describes the use of complementary (quantitative) structure-activity relationship ((Q)SAR) models to assess the mutagenic potential of drug impurities in new and generic drugs. Historically, the CASE Ultra and Leadscope software platforms used two different statistical-based models to predict mutations at G-C (guanine-cytosine) and A-T (adenine-thymine) sites, to comprehensively assess bacterial mutagenesis. In the present study, composite bacterial mutagenicity models covering multiple mutation types were developed. These new models contain more than double the number of chemicals (n = 9,254 and n = 13,514) than the corresponding non-composite models and show better toxicophore coverage. Additionally, the use of a single composite bacterial mutagenicity model simplifies impurity analysis in an ICH M7 (Q)SAR workflow by reducing the number of model outputs requiring review. An external validation set of 388 drug impurities representing proprietary pharmaceutical chemical space showed performance statistics ranging from of 66-82% in sensitivity, 91-95% in negative predictivity and 96% in coverage. This effort represents a major enhancement to these (Q)SAR models and their use under ICH M7(R1), leading to improved patient safety through greater predictive accuracy, applicability, and efficiency when assessing the bacterial mutagenic potential of drug impurities.

Managing emerging mutagenicity risks: Late stage mutagenic impurity control within the atovaquone second generation synthesis

The mutagenic-impurity control strategy for a second generation manufacturing route to the non-mutagenic antipneumocystic agent atovaquone (2-((1R,4R)-4-(4-chlorophenyl)cyclohexyl)-3-hydroxynaphthalene-1,4-dione) 1 is described. Preliminary assessment highlighted multiple materials of concern which were largely discharged either through returning a negative bacterial mutagenicity assay or through confidence that the impurity would be purged during the downstream processing from when it was first introduced. Additional genotoxicity testing highlighted two materials of concern where initial assessment suggested that testing for these impurities at trace levels within the drug substance would be required. Following a thorough review of process purging detail, spiking and purging experimentation, and an understanding of the process parameters to which they were exposed an ICH M7 Option 4 approach could be justified for their control. The development of two 1H NMR spectroscopy methods for measurement of these impurities is also described as well as a proposed summary table for describing the underlying rationale for ICH M7 control rationales to regulators. This manuscript demonstrates that process purging of potential mutagenic impurities can be realised even when they are introduced in the later stages of a process and highlights the importance of scientific understanding rather than relying on a stage-counting approach.