Search

Investigative toxicology describes the de-risking and mechanistic elucidation of toxicities, supporting early safety decisions in the pharmaceutical industry. Recently, investigative toxicology has contributed to a shift in pharmaceutical toxicology, from a descriptive to an evidence-based, mechanistic discipline. This was triggered by high costs and low throughput of Good Laboratory Practice in vivo studies, and increasing demands for adherence to the 3R (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) principles of animal welfare. Outside the boundaries of regulatory toxicology, investigative toxicology has the flexibility to embrace new technologies, enhancing translational steps from in silico, in vitro to in vivo mechanistic understanding to eventually predict human response. One major goal of investigative toxicology is to improve preclinical decisions, which coincides with the concept of animal-free safety testing. Currently, compounds under preclinical development are being discarded owing to the use of inappropriate animal models. Progress in investigative toxicology could lead to humanized in vitro test systems and the development of medicines less reliant on animal tests. To advance this field, a group of 14 European-based leaders from the pharmaceutical industry founded the Investigative Toxicology Leaders Forum (ITLF), an open, non-exclusive, and pre-competitive group that shares knowledge and experience. The ITLF collaborated with the Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing Europe (CAAT-Europe) to organize an "Investigative Toxicology Think Tank", which aimed to enhance interaction with experts from academia and regulatory bodies in the field. Summarizing the topics and discussion of the workshop, this article highlights investigative toxicology's position by identifying key challenges and perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genotoxicity testing is an important part of standard safety testing strategies. Animal studies have always been a key component, either as a mandatory part of the regulatory test battery, or to follow-up questionable in vitro findings. The strengths and weaknesses of in vivo assays is a continuous matter of debate, including their capacity to predict (human) carcinogenicity. We have therefore analysed the sensitivity of five routinely used in vivo tests to determine, in addition to other aspects, which tests or combination of tests best identify 73 chemicals classified as IARC Group 1 and 2A carcinogens. The in vivo tests included the micronucleus (MN), unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS), comet, Pig-a and transgenic rodent assays (TGR). The individual assays detect 74.2% (49/66, MN), 64.3% (9/14, UDS), 92.1% (35/38, comet), 82.4% (14/17, Pig-a) and 90.3% (28/31, TGR) of the probable and confirmed human carcinogens that were tested in these assays. Combining assays that cover different genotoxicity endpoints and multiple tissues, e.g. the bone marrow MN and the liver comet assays, increases the sensitivity further (to 94%). Correlations in terms of organ-specificity for these assays with human cancer target organs revealed only a limited correlation for the hematopoietic system but not for other organs. The data supports the use of the comet and TGR assays for detection of 'site-of-first-contact' genotoxicants, but these chemicals were generally also detected in assays that measure genotoxicity in tissues not directly exposed, e.g. liver and the hematopoietic system. In conclusion, our evaluation confirmed a high sensitivity of the five in vivo genotoxicity assays for prediction of human carcinogens, which can be further increased by combining assays. Moreover, the addition of the comet to the in vivo MN test would identify all DNA reactive human carcinogens. Importantly, integration of some of the study readouts into one experiment is an animal-saving alternative to performing separate experiments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, assessing the photogenotoxic potential of a compound became an issue for certain drugs and cosmetical products. Therefore, existing methods performed according to international guidelines (e.g. OECD guidelines) were adapted to the use of concurrent UV-visible (UV-Vis) light irradiation for the assessment of photomutagenicity/photogenotoxicity. In this review, photobiological bases of the processes occurring in the cell after irradiation with UV- and/or visible (vis)-light as well as a compilation of testing methods is presented. Methods comprise cell free investigations on naked DNA and in vitro methods, such as the photo-Ames test, the photo-HPRT/photo-mouse lymphoma assay (MLA), the photo-micronucleus test (MNT), the photo-chromosomal aberration test (CA) and the photo-Comet assay. A compilation of the currently available international literature of compounds tested on photogenotoxicity is given for each method. The state of the art of photogenotoxicity testing as well as the rational for testing are outlined in relation to the recommendations reached in expert working groups at different international meetings and to regulatory guidance papers. Finally, photogenotoxicity testing as predictor of photocarcinogenicity and in the light of risk assessment is discussed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Sixteen training compounds selected in the IMI MIP-DILI consortium, 12 drug-induced liver injury (DILI) positive compounds and 4 non-DILI compounds, were assessed in cryopreserved primary human hepatocytes. When a ten-fold safety margin threshold was applied, the non-DILI-compounds were correctly identified 2 h following a single exposure to pooled human hepatocytes (n = 13 donors) in suspension and 14-days following repeat dose exposure (3 treatments) to an established 3D-microtissue co-culture (3D-MT co-culture, n = 1 donor) consisting of human hepatocytes co-cultured with non-parenchymal cells (NPC). In contrast, only 5/12 DILI-compounds were correctly identified 2 h following a single exposure to pooled human hepatocytes in suspension. Exposure of the 2D-sandwich culture human hepatocyte monocultures (2D-sw) for 3 days resulted in the correct identification of 11/12 DILI-positive compounds, whereas exposure of the human 3D-MT co-cultures for 14 days resulted in identification of 9/12 DILI-compounds; in addition to ximelagatran (also not identified by 2D-sw monocultures, Sison-Young et al., 2016 ), the 3D-MT co-cultures failed to detect amiodarone and bosentan. The sensitivity of the 2D human hepatocytes co-cultured with NPC to ximelagatran was increased in the presence of lipopolysaccharide (LPS), but only at high concentrations, therefore preventing its classification as a DILI positive compound. In conclusion (1) despite suspension human hepatocytes having the greatest metabolic capacity in the short term, they are the least predictive of clinical DILI across the MIP-DILI test compounds, (2) longer exposure periods than 72 h of human hepatocytes do not allow to increase DILI-prediction rate, (3) co-cultures of human hepatocytes with NPC, in the presence of LPS during the 72 h exposure period allow the assessment of innate immune system involvement of a given drug. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evaluation and mitigation of the potential carcinogenic risks associated with nitrosamines in marketed pharmaceutical products are areas of interest for pharmaceutical companies and health authorities alike. Significant progress has been made to establish acceptable intake (AI) levels for N-nitrosamine drug substance-related impurities (NDSRIs) using SAR, however some compounds require experimental data to support derivation of a recommended AI. Many angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, identified by the suffix "pril," have secondary amines that can potentially react to form nitrosamines. Here we consider a structural assessment and metabolism data, coupled with comprehensive in vitro and in vivo (mouse) genotoxicity testing to evaluate this particular class of nitrosamines. N-nitroso ramipril and N-nitroso quinapril, both of which are predicted to have inhibited nitrosamine bioactivation due to steric hinderance and branching at the α-position were non-genotoxic in the in vivo liver comet assay and non-mutagenic in the in vivo Big Blue® mutation and duplex sequencing assays. Predicted metabolism along with in vitro metabolism data and quantum chemical calculations related to DNA interactions offer a molecular basis for the negative results observed in both in vitro and in vivo testing. These nitrosamines are concluded to be non-mutagenic and non-carcinogenic; therefore, they should be controlled according to ICH Q3B guidance. Furthermore, these results for N-nitroso ramipril and N-nitroso quinapril should be considered when evaluating the appropriate AI and control strategy for other structurally similar "pril" NDSRIs., (© 2024 Pfizer. Sanofi Deutschland GmbH and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Environmental Mutagenesis and Genomics Society.)