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.

Research-Relevant Clinical Pathology Resources: Emphasis on Mice, Rats, Rabbits, Dogs, Minipigs, and Non-Human Primates

Clinical pathology testing for investigative or biomedical research and for preclinical toxicity and safety assessment in laboratory animals is a distinct specialty requiring an understanding of species specific and other influential variables on results and interpretation. This review of clinical pathology principles and testing recommendations in laboratory animal species aims to provide a useful resource for researchers, veterinary specialists, toxicologists, and clinical or anatomic pathologists.

Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Points to Consider: Biological Sample Retention From Nonclinical Toxicity Studies

Samples of biologic specimens and their derivatives (eg, wet tissues, paraffin-embedded tissue blocks, histology slides, frozen tissues, whole blood, serum/plasma, and urine) are routinely collected during the course of nonclinical toxicity studies. Good Laboratory Practice regulations and/or guidance specify minimum requirements for specimen retention duration, with the caveat that retention of biologic specimens need not extend beyond the duration of sample stability. However, limited availability of published data regarding stability for various purposes following storage of each specimen type has resulted in confusion, uncertainty, and inconsistency as to the appropriate duration for storage of these specimens. To address these issues, a working group of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee was formed to review published information, regulations, and guidance pertinent to this topic and to summarize the current practices and rationales for retention duration through a survey-based approach. Information regarding experiences reaccessing biologic specimens and performing sample stability investigations was also collected. Based on this combined information, the working group developed several points to consider that may be referenced when developing or revising sample retention practices. [Box: see text].

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].

Curation and analysis of clinical pathology parameters and histopathologic findings from eTOXsys, a large database project (eTOX) for toxicologic studies

Large data sharing projects amongst the pharmaceutical industry have the potential to generate new insights using data on a scale that has not been previously available. A retrospective analysis of the preclinical toxicology data collected as part of the eTOX project was conducted with the aim to provide background rates and treatment-related value analysis on both clinical pathology and histopathology datasets. Incorporated into this analysis was an extensive data consolidation task to standardise all data. Reference intervals for common clinical pathology parameters in rat and dog were generated, alongside background histopathology incidence rates in the liver, heart and kidney. Systematically applied decision thresholds allowed consistent relabelling of data points considered anomalous, and maximum fold change estimates. Relabelling of anomalous data points was conducted for the histopathology data using a Bayesian model to identify dose-dependent increases in pathologies. The results of this study allow: newly generated data to be analysed using the same methodology, rates and distributions to be used when building predictive dose-response models, and the possibility to correlate clinical pathology findings with concurrent histopathology findings. In the first half of this paper we discuss data curation, in the second half we report on the analytical methods and results.

Pathology Study Design, Conduct, and Reporting to Achieve Rigor and Reproducibility in Translational Research Using Animal Models

In translational research, animal models are an important tool to aid in decision-making when taking potential therapies into human clinical trials. Recently, there have been a number of papers that have suggested limited concordance of preclinical animal experiments with subsequent human clinical experience. Assessments of preclinical animal studies have led to concerns about the reproducibility of data and have highlighted the need for an emphasis on rigor and quality in the planning, conduct, analysis, and reporting of such studies. The incorporation of a wider role for the comparative pathologist using pathology best practices in the planning and conduct of animal model-based research is one way to increase the quality and reproducibility of data. The use of optimal design and planning of tissue collection, incorporation of pathology methods into written protocols, conduct of pathology procedures using accepted best practices, and the use of optimal pathology analysis and reporting methods enhance the quality of the data acquired from many types of preclinical animal models and studies. Many of these pathology practices are well established in the discipline of toxicologic pathology and have a proven and useful track record in enhancing the data from animal-based studies used in safety assessment of human therapeutics. Some of this experience can be adopted by the wider community of preclinical investigators to increase the reproducibility of animal study data.

Opportunities to Apply the 3Rs in Safety Assessment Programs

Before a potential new medicine can be administered to humans it is essential that its safety is adequately assessed. Safety assessment in animals forms an integral part of this process, from early drug discovery and initial candidate selection to the program of recommended regulatory tests in animals. The 3Rs (replacement, reduction, and refinement of animals in research) are integrated in the current regulatory requirements and expectations and, in the EU, provide a legal and ethical framework for in vivo research to ensure the scientific objectives are met whilst minimizing animal use and maintaining high animal welfare standards. Though the regulations are designed to uncover potential risks, they are intended to be flexible, so that the most appropriate approach can be taken for an individual product. This article outlines current and future opportunities to apply the 3Rs in safety assessment programs for pharmaceuticals, and the potential (scientific, financial, and ethical) benefits to the industry, across the drug discovery and development process. For example, improvements to, or the development of, novel, early screens (e.g., in vitro, in silico, or nonmammalian screens) designed to identify compounds with undesirable characteristics earlier in development have the potential to reduce late-stage attrition by improving the selection of compounds that require regulatory testing in animals. Opportunities also exist within the current regulatory framework to simultaneously reduce and/or refine animal use and improve scientific outcomes through improvements to technical procedures and/or adjustments to study designs. It is important that approaches to safety assessment are continuously reviewed and challenged to ensure they are science-driven and predictive of relevant effects in humans.