Concordance of 3 alternative teratogenicity assays with results from corresponding in vivo embryo-fetal development studies: Final report from the International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development (IQ) DruSafe working group 2

New approach methodologies to confirm developmental toxicity of pharmaceuticals based on weight of evidence

The aim of embryo-fetal developmental toxicity assessments for pharmaceuticals is to inform potential risk of adverse pregnancy outcome, which has traditionally relied on studies in pregnant animals. Recent updates to international safety guidelines (ICH S5R3) have incorporated information on how to use weight of evidence and alternative assays to reduce animal use while still informing risk of fetal harm. Uptake of these alternative approaches has been slow due to limitations in understanding how alternative assays translate to in vivo effects and then relevance to human exposure. To understand the predictivity of new approach methodologies for developmental toxicity (DevTox NAMs), we used two pharmaceutical examples (glasdegib and lorlatinib) to illustrate the value of DevTox NAMs to complement weight of evidence (WoE) assessments while considering the relationship of concentration-effect levels in NAMs to in vivo studies. The in vitro results generated in a battery of assays (mEST, rWEC, zebrafish, and human based stem cells) confirmed the WoE based on literature and further confirmed by preliminary embryo-fetal development data. The data generated for these two compounds supports integrating DevTox NAMs into the developmental toxicity assessment for advanced cancer indications.

Biological variability hampers the use of skeletal staining methods in zebrafish embryo developmental toxicity assays

Zebrafish embryo assays are used by pharmaceutical and chemical companies as new approach methodologies (NAMs) in developmental toxicity screening. Despite an overall high concordance of zebrafish embryo assays with in vivo mammalian studies, false negative and false positive results have been reported. False negative results in risk assessment models are of particular concern for human safety, as developmental anomalies may be missed. Interestingly, for several chemicals and drugs that were reported to be false negative in zebrafish, skeletal findings were noted in the in vivo studies. As the number of skeletal endpoints assessed in zebrafish is very limited compared to the in vivo mammalian studies, the aim of this study was to investigate whether the sensitivity could be increased by including a skeletal staining method. Three staining methods were tested on zebrafish embryos that were exposed to four teratogens that caused skeletal anomalies in rats and/or rabbits and were false negative in zebrafish embryo assays. These methods included a fixed alizarin red-alcian blue staining, a calcein staining, and a live alizarin red staining. The results showed a high variability in staining intensity of larvae exposed to mammalian skeletal teratogens, as well as variability between control larvae originating from the same clutch of zebrafish. Hence, biological variability in (onset of) bone development in zebrafish hampers the detection of (subtle) treatment-related bone effects that are not picked-up by gross morphology. In conclusion, the used skeletal staining methods did not increase the sensitivity of zebrafish embryo developmental toxicity assays.