Getting a molecule into the clinic: Nonclinical testing and starting dose considerations

Nonclinical Testing Evaluation of Liposomes as Drug Delivery Systems

Various marketed drugs, as well as many in-development, have utilized liposomes, vesicles composed of one or more phospholipid bilayers, as a drug delivery system, often with the statement that they are "non-toxic" materials. This paper examined safety testing considerations and reviewed nonclinical packages used to support the safe clinical use and marketing of drugs using a liposomal drug delivery system, including liposome-only study findings. It was found that most experience has come from use of an established drug (especially in the oncology field) in a liposome formulation with known excipients. From this knowledge, it is proposed that the minimal package of studies (using an oncology indication as an example) needed to support clinical entry should include in vivo pharmacology in selected mouse xenograft models, pharmacokinetic characterization showing enhanced kinetics or disposition and including tumor exposure evaluation along with repeat-dose toxicity testing in one species. It was also found that the liposomes used in drug delivery systems are not truly "non-toxic" materials. However, the majority of findings in toxicity testing relate to macrophage processing of large amounts of lipid material, with no human known safety consequence. Of note, however, are cases of hypersensitivity for some PEGylated liposome forms which translate to the clinic.

Adeno-associated virus (AAV)-based gene therapy products: What are toxicity studies in non-human primates showing us?

A number of adeno-associated virus (AAV)-based gene therapy products have entered clinical development, with a few also reaching marketing approval. However, as our knowledge of them grows from nonclinical and clinical testing, it has become apparent that various actual and theoretical safety issues can arise from their use. This review of 19 Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)-compliant toxicity studies in non-human primates (NHPs) with AAV-based gene therapy products via a variety of different dose routes in the period 2017-2021 showed results ranging from no study findings different from controls, or findings considered to be non-adverse, to actual toxicity, with changes highlighting careful monitoring in the clinic. Similar findings were found from a review of a number of published toxicity studies in NHPs. It was confirmed that studies have a role in evaluating for dorsal root ganglion (DRG) and/or peripheral nerve toxicity, hepatotoxicity, adverse immunogenicity and, to a lesser degree, insertional mutagenesis as well as other potential unacceptable findings such as adverse inflammation for ocular therapy candidates. Overall, it was demonstrated that toxicity (and biodistribution) studies in NHPs are a vital part of the safety assessment of AAV-based gene therapy products prior to clinical entry.

Development of COVID-19 therapies: Nonclinical testing considerations

Therapies have been developed in the last couple of years to allow vaccination against, or treatment of patients with, COVID-19 using pathways such as Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the USA and Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA) in the EU and UK. However, nonclinical studies were performed to allow such authorization and these were reviewed for 6 vaccines, 7 biological (monoclonal antibodies [mAbs]) and 4 small molecule therapies to examine whether the number and types of studies normally needed for regulatory agency authorization have been reduced. Results showed that the short answer is generally no. Thus, a battery of immunogenicity/efficacy or related pharmacology/biological activity studies showing utility against SARS-CoV-2 were performed as well as general toxicity studies across all 3 compound classes along with pharmacokinetic studies for mAbs and small molecules and, reproduction toxicity testing for vaccines and small molecules; additionally, genotoxicity testing occurred for small molecules. What was different from conventional, lengthy drug development, was that for vaccines and small molecules, leverage to existing platform technology or data available for other development programs, respectively, occurred. Recognition that mAbs can target the spike protein leading to neutralization allowed rapid development into clinical candidates.

Genotoxicity test battery - An assessment of its utility in early drug development

Formal requirements for genotoxicity testing of drug candidates to support clinical entry have been in place since the issue of initial regulatory guidance over 25 years ago and subsequent update a decade ago. An evaluation of such testing, supporting first clinical entry of 108 small molecule drug candidates over the last decade, showed that the most common approach (75 % of tested compounds) was for a Good Laboratory Practice test battery in the form of 2 in vitro (a bacterial reverse mutation and a mammalian cell) assays and one in vivo assay. The majority of other tested compounds involved in vitro testing only in bacterial reverse mutation and mammalian cell assays. Testing using a bacterial reverse mutation assay and an in vivo assessment of genotoxicity with 2 different tissues was limited to 2 occasions. For in vitro mammalian cell testing, the chromosome aberration test was most commonly used (70 % occasions), followed by a micronucleus test (16 % occasions) or a mouse lymphoma assay (14 % occasions). For in vivo evaluation, the most common test was a rodent bone marrow micronucleus test (87 % occasions). A positive in vitro mammalian cell assay result was seen on 13 % occasions but was not confirmed with further in vivo testing and the drug candidates were taken into the clinic. In conclusion, the present evaluation showed that the current test battery paradigm for genotoxicity testing has an integral part in supporting clinical entry to confirm candidate drugs taken into the clinic are unlikely to have genotoxic activity.

Species selection for nonclinical safety assessment of drug candidates: Examples of current industry practice

In drug development, nonclinical safety assessment is pivotal for human risk assessment and support of clinical development. Selecting the relevant/appropriate animal species for toxicity testing increases the likelihood of detecting potential effects in humans, and although recent regulatory guidelines state the need to justify or dis-qualify animal species for toxicity testing, individual companies have developed decision-processes most appropriate for their molecules, experience and 3Rs policies. These generally revolve around similarity of metabolic profiles between toxicology species/humans and relevant pharmacological activity in at least one species for New Chemical Entities (NCEs), whilst for large molecules (biologics) the key aspect is similarity/presence of the intended human target epitope. To explore current industry practice, a questionnaire was developed to capture relevant information around process, documentation and tools/factors used for species selection. Collated results from 14 companies (Contract Research Organisations and pharmaceutical companies) are presented, along with some case-examples or over-riding principles from individual companies. As the process and justification of species selection is expected to be a topic for continued emphasis, this information could be adapted towards a harmonized approach or best practice for industry consideration.

Core battery safety pharmacology testing - An assessment of its utility in early drug development

Requirements for safety pharmacology testing have been in place since the issue of initial regulatory guidance over 20 years ago. An evaluation of such testing, supporting first clinical entry of 105 small molecule drug candidates over the last decade, showed that a "core battery" of in vitro electrophysiological (hERG), conscious non-rodent telemetry cardiovascular, rodent central nervous system (CNS) (modified Irwin's or functional observational battery [FOB] test) and respiratory function (plethysmography) studies was performed. Routine use of the latter 2 studies appears to have limited utility, with only 21% and 28% of studies, respectively, giving findings of which none were identified as of obvious concern to moving the affected drugs into the clinic. The use of a stand-alone hERG assay does not appear to be particular sensitive in predicting proarrythmic risk as a tool by itself. Telemetry study testing had utility especially for identifying effects on QTc interval (about 10% of studies), resulting on some occasions in a lower clinical starting dose and/or increased awareness for potential effects on the cardiovascular system in the Phase I study. Overall, this investigation provides information supporting an overhaul of the current "box ticking" core battery approach used for safety pharmacology testing. However, in order to achieve a more focused examination to investigate potential undesirable pharmacodynamic effects of a new candidate drug and also support 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) thinking in performing unnecessary studies, there will not only need to be a sea change by drug developers but also a change in current regulatory guidance.

Justification for species selection for pharmaceutical toxicity studies

Toxicity studies using mammalian species are generally required to provide safety data to support clinical development and licencing registration for potential new pharmaceuticals. International regulatory guidelines outline recommendations for the order (rodent and/or non-rodent) and number of species, retaining flexibility for development of a diverse range of drug modalities in a manner relevant for each specific new medicine. Selection of the appropriate toxicology species involves consideration of scientific, ethical and practical factors, with individual companies likely having different perspectives and preferences regarding weighting of various aspects dependent upon molecule characteristics and previous experience of specific targets or molecule classes. This article summarizes presentations from a symposium at the 2019 Annual Congress of the British Toxicology Society on the topic of species selection for pharmaceutical toxicity studies. This symposium included an overview of results from a National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) and Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) international collaboration that reviewed the use of one or two species in regulatory toxicology studies and justification for the species selected within each programme. Perspectives from two pharmaceutical companies described their processes for species selection for evaluation of biologics, and justification for selection of the minipig as a toxicological species for small molecules. This article summarizes discussions on the scientific justification and other considerations taken into account to ensure the most appropriate animal species are used for toxicity studies to meet regulatory requirements and to provide the most value for informing project decisions.

Animal Safety, Toxicology, and Pharmacokinetic Studies According to the ICH S9 Guideline for a Novel Fusion Protein tTF-NGR Targeting Procoagulatory Activity into Tumor Vasculature: Are Results Predictive for Humans?

Simple Summary

Non-clinical safety, toxicology, and pharmacokinetic studies according to ICH guidelines with a new fusion protein tTF-NGR consisting of human truncated tissue factor (TF) and a small targeting peptide are reported. Results are compared with those of a phase I clinical dose escalation trial with tTF-NGR in cancer patients. Most of the non-clinical results were not predictive for human tolerability. Thus, animal sparing alternative pathways for translation of such a bio-pharmaceutical compound from preclinical studies on efficacy and mode of action into the clinic are discussed.

Abstract

Background: CD-13 targeted tissue factor tTF-NGR is a fusion protein selectively inducing occlusion of tumor vasculature with resulting tumor infarction. Mechanistic and pharmacodynamic studies have shown broad anti-tumor therapeutic effects in xenograft models. Methods: After successful Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) production and before translation into clinical phase I, ICH S9 (S6) guideline-conforming animal safety, toxicology, and pharmacokinetic (PK) studies were requested by the federal drug authority in accordance with European and US regulations. Results: These studies were performed in mice, rats, guinea pigs, and beagle dogs. Results of the recently completed clinical phase I trial in end-stage cancer patients showed only limited predictive value of these non-clinical studies for patient tolerability and safety in phase I. Conclusions: Although this experience cannot be generalized, alternative pathways with seamless clinical phase 0 microdosing—phase I dose escalation studies are endorsed for anticancer drug development and translation into the clinic.

Toxicology Paradise: Sorting Out Adverse and Non-adverse Findings in Animal Toxicity Studies

A challenge for all toxicologists is defining what study findings are actually adverse versus non-adverse in animal toxicity studies, and which ones are relevant for generating a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) to assess human risk. This article presents views on this challenge presented by toxicologists, toxicologic pathologists, and regulatory reviewers at the 2019 annual meeting of the American College of Toxicology during a workshop entitled "Toxicology Paradise: Sorting Out Adverse and Non-adverse Findings." The speakers noted that setting a NOAEL is not always straightforward, not only for small molecules but also for biopharmaceuticals, and that a "weight of evidence" approach often is more useful than a rigid threshold-setting algorithm. Regulators from the US Food and Drug Administration and European Union told how assessment of adverse nonclinical findings is undertaken to allow clinical studies to commence and drug marketing approvals to succeed, along with the process that allows successful dialogs with regulators. Nonclinical case studies of findings judged to be adverse versus non-adverse were presented in relation to the many factors that might halt or delay clinical development. The process of defining adverse findings and the NOAEL in final study reports was discussed, as well as who should be involved in the process.

Opportunities for use of one species for longer-term toxicology testing during drug development: A cross-industry evaluation

An international expert working group representing 37 organisations (pharmaceutical/biotechnology companies, contract research organisations, academic institutions and regulatory bodies) collaborated in a data sharing exercise to evaluate the utility of two species within regulatory general toxicology studies. Anonymised data on 172 drug candidates (92 small molecules, 46 monoclonal antibodies, 15 recombinant proteins, 13 synthetic peptides and 6 antibody-drug conjugates) were submitted by 18 organisations. The use of one or two species across molecule types, the frequency for reduction to a single species within the package of general toxicology studies, and a comparison of target organ toxicities identified in each species in both short and longer-term studies were determined. Reduction to a single species for longer-term toxicity studies, as used for the development of biologicals (ICHS6(R1) guideline) was only applied for 8/133 drug candidates, but might have been possible for more, regardless of drug modality, as similar target organ toxicity profiles were identified in the short-term studies. However, definition and harmonisation around the criteria for similarity of toxicity profiles is needed to enable wider consideration of these principles. Analysis of a more robust dataset would be required to provide clear, evidence-based recommendations for expansion of these principles to small molecules or other modalities where two species toxicity testing is currently recommended.