Society of Toxicologic Pathology position paper on best practices on recovery studies: the role of the anatomic pathologist

Recovery Animals in Toxicology Studies: An Innovation and Quality Consortium Perspective on Best Practices With Case Study Examples

The inclusion of recovery animals in nonclinical safety studies that support clinical trials is undertaken with a wide diversity of approaches even while operating under harmonized regulatory guidance. While empirical evaluation of reversibility may enhance the overall nonclinical risk assessment, there are often overlooked opportunities to reduce recovery animal use by leveraging robust scientific and regulatory information. In the past, there were several attempts to benchmark recovery practices; however, recommendations have not been consistently applied across the pharmaceutical industry. A working group (WG) sponsored by the 3Rs Translational and Predictive Sciences Leadership Group of the IQ Consortium conducted a survey of current industry practice related to the evaluation of reversibility/recovery in repeat dose toxicity studies. Discussion among the WG representatives included member company strategies and case studies that highlight challenges and opportunities for continuous refinements in the use of recovery animals. The case studies presented in this paper demonstrate increasing alignment with the Society of Toxicologic Pathology recommendations (2013) towards (1) excluding recovery phase cohorts by default (include only when scientifically justified), (2) minimizing the number of recovery groups (e.g., control and one dose level), and (3) excluding controls in the recovery cohort by leveraging external and/or dosing phase data. Recovery group exclusion and decisions regarding the timing of reversibility evaluation may be driven by indication, modality, and/or other scientific or strategic factors using a weight of evidence approach. The results and recommendations discussed present opportunities to further decrease animal use without impacting the quality of human risk assessment.

Fostering Animal Welfare and Advancing 3Rs Principles through the Establishment of a 3Rs Advisory Group

Based on the current state of science, the use of animals remains essential in bringing safe and effective medicines to patients. Respect for laboratory animal welfare and the application of 3Rs principles (the replacement, reduction, and refinement of animal use in research) are a priority throughout the pharmaceutical industry. Given the rapid pace of development, technological progress, and the emergence of new-approach methodologies (NAMs) in the field of biomedical research, maintaining a leading position in scientific advancements with a focus on the principles of replace, reduce, and refine (3Rs) can be quite challenging. To effectively address these challenges and sustain a prominent position in the scientific community, organizations can derive significant advantages from establishing an internal 3Rs advisory group (3Rs AG). The primary objective of a 3Rs AG is to stay at the forefront of the knowledge of best practices related to the 3Rs principles in the industry. This group plays a crucial role in fostering innovation and facilitating the seamless integration and implementation of 3Rs principles into a company's policies and procedures. The thoughtful reduction in and replacement of animal studies and the refinement of study designs and practices, enabled by a 3Rs AG, can minimize animal use as well as guide resources and positively impact study and data quality. This article provides guidance on how to establish a successful and impactful 3Rs AG.

The use of recovery animals in nonclinical safety assessment studies with monoclonal antibodies: further 3Rs opportunities remain

Assessment of reversibility from nonclinical toxicity findings in animals with potential adverse clinical impact is required during pharmaceutical development, but there is flexibility around how and when this is performed and if recovery animals are necessary. For monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and in accordance with ICH S6(R1) if inclusion of recovery animals is warranted, this need only occur in one study. Data on study designs for first-in-human (FIH)-enabling and later-development toxicity studies were shared from a recent collaboration between the NC3Rs, EPAA, Netherlands Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) and 14 pharmaceutical companies. This enabled a review of practices on recovery animal use during mAb development and identification of opportunities to reduce research animal use. Recovery animals were included in 68% of FIH-enabling and 69% of later-development studies, often in multiple studies in the same program. Recovery groups were commonly in control plus one test article-dosed group or in all dose groups (45% of studies, each design). Based on the shared data review and conclusions, limiting inclusion of recovery to a single nonclinical toxicology study and species, study design optimisation and use of existing knowledge instead of additional recovery groups provide opportunities to further reduce animal use within mAb development programs.

FDA and industry collaboration: Identifying opportunities to further reduce reliance on nonhuman primates for nonclinical safety evaluations

The nonhuman primate (NHP) has always been a limited resource for pharmaceutical research with ongoing efforts to conserve. This is due to their inherent biological properties, the growth in biotherapeutics and other modalities, and their use in small molecule drug development. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has significantly impacted the availability of NHPs due to the immediate need for NHPs to develop COVID-19 vaccines and treatments and the China NHP export ban; thus, accelerating the need to further replace, reduce and refine (3Rs) NHP use. The impact of the NHP shortage on drug development led DruSafe, BioSafe, and the United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) to discuss this issue at their 2021 annual meeting. This meeting identified areas to further the 3Rs in NHP use within the current nonclinical safety evaluation regulatory framework and highlighted the need to continue advancing alternative methods towards the aspirational goal to replace use of NHPs in the long term. Alignment across global health authorities is necessary for implementation of approaches that fall outside existing guidelines. This article captures the proceedings from this meeting highlighting current best practices and areas for 3Rs in NHP use.

Toxicologic Pathology Forum: Opinion on Not Euthanizing Control Animals in the Recovery Phase of Non-Rodent Toxicology Studies

Nonclinical toxicology studies that are required to support human clinical trials of new drug candidates are generally conducted in a rodent and a non-rodent species. These studies typically contain a vehicle control group and low, intermediate, and high dose test article groups. In addition, a dosing-free recovery phase is sometimes included to determine reversibility of potential toxicities observed during the dosing phase and may include additional animals in the vehicle control and one or more dose groups. Typically, reversibility is determined by comparing the test article-related changes in the dosing phase animals to concurrent recovery phase animals at the same dose level. Therefore, for interpretation of reversibility, it is not always essential to euthanize the recovery vehicle control animals. In the absence of recovery vehicle control tissues, the pathologist's experience, historical control database, digital or glass slide repositories, or literature can be used to interpret the findings in the context of background pathology of the species/strain/age. Therefore, in most studies, the default approach could be not to euthanize recovery vehicle control animals. This article provides opinions on scenarios that may or may not necessitate euthanasia of recovery phase vehicle control animals in nonclinical toxicology studies involving dogs and nonhuman primates.

The Society of Toxicologic Pathology: Advances and Adventures in the First 50 Years

The Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP, https://www.toxpath.org/) was founded in North America in 1971 as a nonprofit scientific and educational association to promote the professional practice of pathology as applied to pharmaceutical and environmental safety assessment. In the ensuing 50 years, the STP has become a principal global leader in the field. Society membership has expanded to include toxicologic pathologists and allied scientists (eg, toxicologists, regulatory reviewers) from many nations. In addition to serving membership needs for professional development and networking, major STP outreach activities include production of articles and presentations designed to optimize toxicologic pathology procedures ("best practice" recommendations), communicate core principles of pathology evaluation and interpretation ("points to consider" and "opinion" pieces), and participation in international efforts to harmonize diagnostic nomenclature. The STP has evolved into an essential resource for academic, government, and industrial organizations that employ and educate toxicologic pathologists as well as use toxicologic pathology data across a range of applications from assessing product safety (therapies, foods, etc) to monitoring and maintaining environmental and occupational health. This article recapitulates the important milestones and accomplishments of the STP during its first 50 years.

Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Points to Consider*: The Toxicologic Pathologist's Role in the 3Rs

Pathologists are trained medical professionals with special expertise in diagnostics, research, and pathophysiology. In these roles, pathologists are well qualified and positioned to engage in conversations about animal use replacement, reduction, and refinement (3Rs), thereby championing the guiding principles of the 3Rs. In particular, toxicology or nonclinical safety assessment is an important area where the discipline of toxicologic pathology can have a critical role in adopting 3Rs principles. As such, a working group of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee was formed to investigate and summarize some of the areas where veterinary pathologists working in the field of toxicology can increase involvement and impact on 3Rs. This "Points to Consider" publication provides an overview of areas within toxicology where the veterinary pathologist's perspective may maximize animal value, including refinement of study design, optimizing sample collection, the development of 3Rs focused regulatory policy, and humane end point determination.[Box: see text].

Ninety-day Local Tolerability and Toxicity Study of ND0612, a Novel Formulation of Levodopa/Carbidopa, Administered by Subcutaneous Continuous Infusion in Minipigs

A 90-day study in Göttingen minipigs was conducted to test the local tolerability and systemic toxicity of ND0612, a novel aqueous solution of carbidopa (CD)/levodopa (LD) intended for the treatment of Parkinson's disease by continuous subcutaneous administration using a discrete infusion pump. To evaluate tissue site reactions, we used a unique study design involving multiple infusion sites to evaluate the effect of dose per site (270/63, 360/45, and 360/84 mg LD/CD), volume of infusion per site (4.5 and 6 ml per site), formulation concentration (60/14 and 60/7.5 mg/ml LD/CD), daily rate of infusion per site (240 μl/hr for16 hr and 80 μl/hr for 8 hr, 320 μl/hr for 16 hr and 100 μl/hr for 8 hr, or 750 μl/hr for 8 hr), frequency (once every 5, 10, 15, or 20 days), and number of infusions (4, 6, or 9) to the same infusion site. No systemic adverse effects were observed. Histopathological changes at infusion sites started with localized minimal necrosis and acute inflammation that progressed to subacute and chronic inflammatory and reparative changes with evidence of progressive recovery following the final infusion. None of the infusion site effects were judged to be adverse, and clinical exposures to ND0612 are not expected to result in adverse responses.

Guidance on the assessment of the biological relevance of data in scientific assessments

EFSA requested its Scientific Committee to prepare a guidance document providing generic issues and criteria to consider biological relevance, particularly when deciding on whether an observed effect is of biological relevance, i.e. is adverse (or shows a beneficial health effect) or not. The guidance document provides a general framework for establishing the biological relevance of observations at various stages of the assessment. Biological relevance is considered at three main stages related to the process of dealing with evidence: Development of the assessment strategy. In this context, specification of agents, effects, subjects and conditions in relation to the assessment question(s): Collection and extraction of data; Appraisal and integration of the relevance of the agents, subjects, effects and conditions, i.e. reviewing dimensions of biological relevance for each data set. A decision tree is developed to assist in the collection, identification and appraisal of relevant data for a given specific assessment question to be answered.

Current nonclinical testing paradigms in support of safe clinical trials: An IQ Consortium DruSafe perspective

The transition from nonclinical to First-in-Human (FIH) testing is one of the most challenging steps in drug development. In response to serious outcomes in a recent Phase 1 trial (sponsored by Bial), IQ Consortium/DruSafe member companies reviewed their nonclinical approach to progress small molecules safely to FIH trials. As a common practice, safety evaluation begins with target selection and continues through iterative in silico and in vitro screening to identify molecules with increased probability of acceptable in vivo safety profiles. High attrition routinely occurs during this phase. In vivo exploratory and pivotal FIH-enabling toxicity studies are then conducted to identify molecules with a favorable benefit-risk profile for humans. The recent serious incident has reemphasized the importance of nonclinical testing plans that are customized to the target, the molecule, and the intended clinical plan. Despite the challenges and inherent risks of transitioning from nonclinical to clinical testing, Phase 1 studies have a remarkably good safety record. Given the rapid scientific evolution of safety evaluation, testing paradigms and regulatory guidance must evolve with emerging science. The authors posit that the practices described herein, together with science-based risk assessment and management, support safe FIH trials while advancing development of important new medicines.

Characterizing “Adversity” of Pathology Findings in Nonclinical Toxicity Studies

The identification of adverse health effects has a central role in the development and risk/safety assessment of chemical entities and pharmaceuticals. There is currently a need for better alignment regarding how nonclinical adversity is determined and characterized. The European Society of Toxicologic Pathology (ESTP) therefore coordinated a workshop to review available definitions of adversity, weigh determining and qualifying factors of adversity based on case examples, and recommend a practical approach to define and characterize adversity in toxicology reports, to serve as a valuable prerequisite for future organ- or lesion-specific workshops planned by the ESTP.

The Vital Role of Pathology in Improving Reproducibility and Translational Relevance of Aging Studies in Rodents

Pathology is a discipline of medicine that adds great benefit to aging studies of rodents by integrating in vivo, biochemical, and molecular data. It is not possible to diagnose systemic illness, comorbidities, and proximate causes of death in aging studies without the morphologic context provided by histopathology. To date, many rodent aging studies do not utilize end points supported by systematic necropsy and histopathology, which leaves studies incomplete, contradictory, and difficult to interpret. As in traditional toxicity studies, if the effect of a drug, dietary treatment, or altered gene expression on aging is to be studied, systematic pathology analysis must be included to determine the causes of age-related illness, moribundity, and death. In this Commentary, the authors discuss the factors that should be considered in the design of aging studies in mice, with the inclusion of robust pathology practices modified after those developed by toxicologic and discovery research pathologists. Investigators in the field of aging must consider the use of histopathology in their rodent aging studies in this era of integrative and preclinical geriatric science (geroscience).

STP Best Practices for Evaluating Clinical Pathology in Pharmaceutical Recovery Studies

The Society of Toxicologic Pathology formed a working group in collaboration with the American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology to provide recommendations for the appropriate inclusion of clinical pathology evaluation in recovery arms of nonclinical toxicity studies but not on when to perform recovery studies. Evaluation of the recovery of clinical pathology findings is not required routinely but provides useful information on risk assessment in nonclinical toxicity studies and is recommended when the ability of the organ to recover is uncertain. The study design generally requires inclusion of concurrent controls to separate procedure-related changes from test article–related changes, but return of clinical pathology values toward baseline may be sufficient in some cases. Evaluation of either a select or full panel of standard hematology, coagulation, and serum and urine chemistry biomarkers can be scientifically justified. It is also acceptable to redesignate dosing phase animals to the recovery phase or vice versa to optimize data interpretation. Assessment of delayed toxicity during the recovery phase is not required but may be appropriate in development programs with unique concerns. Evaluation of the recovery of clinical pathology data for vaccine development is required and, for efficacy markers, is recommended if it furthers pharmacologic understanding.

Recommendations from a global cross-company data sharing initiative on the incorporation of recovery phase animals in safety assessment studies to support first-in-human clinical trials

An international expert group which includes 30 organisations (pharmaceutical companies, contract research organisations, academic institutions and regulatory bodies) has shared data on the use of recovery animals in the assessment of pharmaceutical safety for early development. These data have been used as an evidence-base to make recommendations on the inclusion of recovery animals in toxicology studies to achieve scientific objectives, while reducing animal use. Recovery animals are used in pharmaceutical development to provide information on the potential for a toxic effect to translate into long-term human risk. They are included on toxicology studies to assess whether effects observed during dosing persist or reverse once treatment ends. The group devised a questionnaire to collect information on the use of recovery animals in general regulatory toxicology studies to support first-in-human studies. Questions focused on study design, the rationale behind inclusion or exclusion and the impact this had on internal and regulatory decisions. Data on 137 compounds (including 53 biologicals and 78 small molecules) from 259 studies showed wide variation in where, when and why recovery animals were included. An analysis of individual study and programme design shows that there are opportunities to reduce the use of recovery animals without impacting drug development.

Optimized nonclinical safety assessment strategies supporting clinical development of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies targeting inflammatory diseases

An increasing number of immunomodulatory monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and IgG Fc fusion proteins are either approved or in early-to-late stage clinical trials for the treatment of chronic inflammatory conditions, autoimmune diseases and organ transplant rejection. The exquisite specificity of mAbs, in combination with their multi-functional properties, high potency, long half-life (permitting intermittent dosing and prolonged pharamcological effects), and general lack of off-target toxicity makes them ideal therapeutics. Dosing with mAbs for these severe and debilitating but often non life-threatening diseases is usually prolonged, for several months or years, and not only affects adults, including sensitive populations such as woman of child-bearing potential (WoCBP) and the elderly, but also children. Immunosuppression is usually a therapeutic goal of these mAbs and when administered to patients whose treatment program often involves other immunosuppressive therapies, there is an inherent risk for frank immunosuppression and reduced host defence which when prolonged increases the risk of infection and cancer. In addition when mAbs interact with the immune system they can induce other adverse immune-mediated drug reactions such as infusion reactions, cytokine release syndrome, anaphylaxis, immune-complex-mediated pathology and autoimmunity. An overview of the nonclinical safety assessment and risk mitigation strategies utilized to characterize these immunomodulatory mAbs and Fc fusion proteins to support first-in human (FIH) studies and futher clinical development in inflammatory disease indications is provided. Specific emphasis is placed on the design of studies to qualify animal species for toxicology studies, early studies to investigate safety and define PK/PD relationships, FIH-enabling and chronic toxicology studies, immunotoxicity, developmental, reproductive and juvenile toxicity studies and studies to determine the potential for immunosuppression and reduced host defence against infection and cancer. Nonclinical strategies to facilitate clinical and market entry in the most efficient timeframe are presented.