Search

Use of molecular data in human and ecological health risk assessments of industrial chemicals and agrochemicals has been anticipated by the scientific community for many years; however, these data are rarely used for risk assessment. Here, a logic framework is proposed to explore the feasibility and future development of transcriptomic methods to refine and replace the current apical endpoint-based regulatory toxicity testing paradigm. Four foundational principles are outlined and discussed that would need to be accepted by stakeholders prior to this transformative vision being realized. Well-supported by current knowledge, the first principle is that transcriptomics is a reliable tool for detecting alterations in gene expression that result from endogenous or exogenous influences on the test organism. The second principle states that alterations in gene expression are indicators of adverse or adaptive biological responses to stressors in an organism. Principle 3 is that transcriptomics can be employed to establish a benchmark dose-based point of departure (POD) from short-term, in vivo studies at a dose level below which a concerted molecular change (CMC) is not expected. Finally, Principle 4 states that the use of a transcriptomic POD (set at the CMC dose level) will support a human health-protective risk assessment. If all four principles are substantiated, this vision is expected to transform aspects of the industrial chemical and agrochemical risk assessment process that are focused on establishing safe exposure levels for mammals across numerous toxicological contexts resulting in a significant reduction in animal use while providing equal or greater protection of human health. Importantly, these principles and approaches are also generally applicable for ecological safety assessment.

Background With increasing survival rates, a growing population of patients with cancer have received or will receive adjuvant therapy to prevent cancer recurrences. Patients and caregivers will confront the complexities of balancing the preventative benefits of adjuvant therapy with possible near‐term or long‐term adverse events (AEs). Adjuvant treatment–related AEs (from minimal to severe) can impact therapeutic adherence, quality of life, emotional and physical health, and survival. However, to the authors' knowledge, limited information is available regarding how stakeholders use or desire to use adjuvant‐related AE information to inform the care of patients with cancer. Methods A qualitative, purposeful sampling approach was used to elicit stakeholder feedback via semistructured interviews (24 interviews). Drug development, drug regulatory, clinical, payer, and patient/patient advocacy stakeholders were questioned about the generation, dissemination, and use of adjuvant treatment–related AE information to inform the care of patients with cancer. Transcripts were coded independently by 2 senior health care researchers and reconciled to identify key themes. Results All stakeholder groups in the current study identified needed improvements in each of the following 4 areas: 1) improving the accessibility and relevance of AE‐related information; 2) better integrating and implementing available information regarding AEs for decisions; 3) connecting contemporary cultural and economic value systems to the generation and use of information regarding adjuvant treatment–related AEs; and 4) addressing a lack of alignment and ownership of stakeholder efforts to improve the use of AE information in the adjuvant setting. Conclusions Despite commonalities in the overall needs identified by the diverse stakeholders in the current study, broad systemic change has been stymied. The current study identified the lack of alignment and the absence of a central “owner” of these diffuse efforts as a previously unrecognized hurdle to realizing the desired systemic improvements. Future initiatives aimed at improving quality of life and outcomes for patients receiving adjuvant therapy through the improved use of AE information must address this challenge through innovative collectives and novel leadership strategies., Navigating complex risk‐benefit tradeoffs in the adjuvant treatment setting requires robust and accessible information regarding treatment‐related adverse events. The current multistakeholder qualitative study identifies systemic challenges in the generation and use of information regarding adjuvant treatment–related adverse events to improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

Attribution of adverse events (AEs) is critical to oncology drug development and the regulatory process. However, processes for determining the causality of AEs are often sub-optimal, unreliable, and inefficient. Thus, we conducted a toxicity-attribution workshop in Silver Springs MD to develop guidance for improving attribution of AEs in oncology clinical trials. Attribution stakeholder experts from regulatory agencies, sponsors and contract research organizations, clinical trial principal investigators, pre-clinical translational scientists, and research staff involved in capturing attribution information participated. We also included patients treated in oncology clinical trials and academic researchers with expertise in attribution. We identified numerous challenges with AE attribution, including the non-informative nature of and burdens associated with the 5-tier system of attribution, increased complexity of trial logistics, costs and time associated with AE attribution data collection, lack of training in attribution for early-career investigators, insufficient baseline assessments, and lack of consistency in the reporting of treatment-related and treatment-emergent AEs in publications and clinical scientific reports. We developed recommendations to improve attribution: we propose transitioning from the present 5-tier system to a 2-3 tier system for attribution, more complete baseline information on patients' clinical status at trial entry, and mechanisms for more rapid sharing of AE information during trials. Oncology societies should develop recommendations and training in attribution of toxicities. We call for further harmonization and synchronization of recommendations regarding causality safety reporting between FDA, EMA and other regulatory agencies. Finally, we suggest that journals maintain or develop standardized requirements for reporting attribution in oncology clinical trials.

Background and Purpose Translation of nonclinical markers of delayed ventricular repolarization to clinical QTc prolongation (a biomarker for Torsades de Pointes proarrhythmia) remains an issue in drug discovery and regulatory evaluations. A retrospective analysis of 150 submitted drug applications in a US-FDA database was conducted to determine the utility of established nonclinical in vitro iKr current (hERG), action potential duration (APD) and in vivo (QTc) repolarization assays to detect and predict clinical QTc prolongation. Experimental Approach The diagnostic and prognostic performance of three nonclinical assays were compared with clinical thorough QT study outcomes based on free clinical plasma drug concentrations using sensitivity and specificity, receiver operator curves (ROC), positive and negative predictive values, and likelihood ratios. Key Results Nonclinical assays demonstrated robust specificity (ability to identify drugs without clinical QTc prolongation) but poor sensitivity (ability to identify drugs eliciting clinical QTc prolongation) at low to intermediate (1x-30x) clinical exposure multiples. The QTc assay provided the most robust positive and negative predictive values (ability to predict clinical QTc prolongation). Receiver operator curves (defining overall test accuracy) and likelihood ratios (ability to influence post-test probabilities) demonstrated overall marginal performance for hERG and QTc assays (best results at 30x exposures) while the APD assay demonstrated minimal value. Conclusions and Implications The diagnostic and prognostic value of hERG, APD, and QTc assays varies, with drug concentrations strongly affecting translational performance. While useful in guiding preclinical candidates devoid of clinical QT prolongation, the hERG and QTc repolarization assays provide greater value compared to the APD assay.

The increasing efficacy of cancer therapeutics means that the timespan of cancer therapy administration is undergoing a transition to increasingly long-term settings. Unfortunately, chronic therapy-related adverse health events are an unintended, but not infrequent, outcome of these life-saving therapies. Historically, the cardio-oncology field has evolved as retrospective effort to understand the scope, mechanisms, and impact of treatment-related toxicities that were already impacting patients. This review explores whether current systemic approaches to detecting, reporting, tracking, and communicating AEs are better positioned to provide more proactive or concurrent information to mitigate the impact of AE’s on patient health and quality of life. Because the existing tools and frameworks for capturing these effects are not specific to cardiology, this study looks broadly at the landscape of approaches and assumptions. This review finds evidence of increasing focus on the provision of actionable information to support long-term health and quality of life for survivors and those on chronic therapy. However, the current means to assess and support the impact of this burden on patients and the healthcare system are often of limited relevance for an increasingly long-lived survivor and patient population. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40959-018-0031-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Table S1. Search terms for literature review. Table S2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Table S3. Cost assessment methodologies. Table S4. Defining costs. Table S5. Nature/frequency of treatment-related adverse events. Table S6. Incorporation of â quality of lifeâ . Table S7. Defining the population. Table S8. Search strategy. Table S9. Inclusion/exclusion criteria. (DOCX 138 kb)

Differences were examined between male and female Sprague-Dawley rats in basal levels of a wide range of urinary biomarkers, including 7 recently qualified biomarkers. The data were generated from urine samples collected on 3 occasions from untreated rats included in a study of the effect of gentamicin nephrotoxicity on urinary renal biomarkers, reported in a companion article in this journal (Gautier et al. 2014). The performance of multiple assays (9 singleplex assays and 2 multiplex platforms from Rules Based Medicine [RBM] and Meso Scale Discovery [MSD]) was evaluated, and normal ranges and variability estimates were derived. While variability was generally greater on the RBM platform than other assays, the more striking difference in the results from different assays was in magnitude. Where differences were observed between assays for an individual biomarker, they were seen in both sexes and consistent across samples collected at different time points. Differences of up to 15-fold were observed for some biomarker values between assays indicating that results generated using different assays should not be compared. For 8 biomarkers, there was compelling evidence for a sex difference. Baseline values in males were significantly higher than in females for total protein, β2-microglobulin, clusterin, cystatin-C, glutathione-S-transferase (GST-α), tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases (TIMP-1), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF); female values were significantly higher than that of males for albumin. The largest sex differences (male greater than female by 2- to 11-fold) were seen with β2-microglobulin, GST-α, and TIMP-1. These data add substantially to the limited body of knowledge in this area and provide a useful framework for evaluation of the potential relevance of sex differences in the diagnostic performance of these biomarkers.

This white paper provides a summary of a scientific proposal presented at a Cardiac Safety Research Consortium/Health and Environmental Sciences Institute/Food and Drug Administration–sponsored Think Tank, held at Food and Drug Administration's White Oak facilities, Silver Spring, MD, on July 23, 2013, with the intention of moving toward consensus on defining a new paradigm in the field of cardiac safety in which proarrhythmic risk would be primarily assessed using nonclinical in vitro human models based on solid mechanistic considerations of torsades de pointes proarrhythmia. This new paradigm would shift the emphasis from the present approach that strongly relies on QTc prolongation (a surrogate marker of proarrhythmia) and could obviate the clinical Thorough QT study during later drug development. These discussions represent current thinking and suggestions for furthering our knowledge and understanding of the public health case for adopting a new, integrated nonclinical in vitro/in silico paradigm, the Comprehensive In Vitro Proarrhythmia Assay, for the assessment of a candidate drug's proarrhythmic liability, and for developing a public-private collaborative program to characterize the data content, quality, and approaches required to assess proarrhythmic risk in the absence of a Thorough QT study. This paper seeks to encourage multistakeholder input regarding this initiative and does not represent regulatory guidance.

Cardiac troponin (cTn) has been utilized to assess acute myocardial injury, but the cTn response in active/ongoing chronic injury is not well documented. The purpose of this study was to characterize the cardiac troponin I (cTnI), cardiac troponin T (cTnT), high-sensitivity cTnI, hematology, and clinical chemistry responses in rats treated with doxorubicin. Rats treated with 1, 2, or 3 mg/kg/week (wk) of doxorubicin for 2, 4, or 6 wks were sacrificed after 0, 2, or 4 wks of recovery and compared to untreated controls and animals treated with doxorubicin/dexrazoxane (50 mg/kg/wk) or etoposide (1 and 3 mg/kg/wk). The incidence and mean magnitude of cTn response increased with increasing dose and/or duration of doxorubicin treatment. Conversely, dexrazoxane/doxorubicin was partially protective for cardiotoxicity, and minimal cardiotoxicity occurred with etoposide treatment. Both cTnI and cTnT effectively identified doxorubicin-induced injury as indicated by vacuolation of cardiomyocytes of the atria/ventricles. The association between the cTn responses and histological changes was greater at the higher total exposures, but the magnitude of cTn response did not match closely with histologic grade. The high-sensitivity cTnI assay was also effective in identifying cardiac injury. Alterations occurred in the hematology and clinical chemistry parameters and reflected both dose and duration of doxorubicin treatment.

Translational cancer research requires a quality-of-life–driven agenda.

In October 2008, in a public forum organized by the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium and the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, leaders from government, the pharmaceutical industry, and academia convened in Bethesda, MD, to discuss current challenges in evaluation of short- and long-term cardiovascular safety during drug development. The current paradigm for premarket evaluation of cardiac safety begins with preclinical animal modeling and progresses to clinical biomarker or biosignature assays. Preclinical evaluations have clear limitations but provide an important opportunity to identify safety hazards before administration of potential new drugs to human subjects. Discussants highlighted the need to identify, develop, and validate serum and electrocardiogram biomarkers indicative of early drug-induced myocardial toxicity and proarrhythmia. Specifically, experts identified a need to build consensus regarding the use and interpretation of troponin assays in preclinical evaluation of myocardial toxicity. With respect to proarrhythmia, the panel emphasized a need for better qualitative and quantitative biomarkers for arrhythmogenicity, including more streamlined human thorough QT study designs and a universal definition of the end of the T wave. Toward many of these ends, large shared data repositories and a more seamless integration of preclinical and clinical testing could facilitate the development of novel approaches to both cardiac safety biosignatures. In addition, more thorough and efficient early clinical studies could enable better estimates of cardiovascular risk and better inform phase II and phase III trial design. Participants also emphasized the importance of establishing formal guidelines for data standards and transparency in postmarketing surveillance. Priority pursuit of these consensus-based directions should facilitate both safer drugs and accelerated access to new drugs, as concomitant public health benefits.

Cardiac troponins (cTns) are established biomarkers of ischemic heart disease in humans. However, their value as biomarkers of cardiac injury from causes other than ischemic heart disease is now being explored, particularly in drug development. In a workshop sponsored by the Cardiac Troponin Biomarker Working Group of the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, preclinical, clinical, and regulatory scientists discussed the application of cTns in their respective environments, issues in translating the preclinical application of cTn to clinical studies, and gaps in our understanding of cTn biology and pathobiology. Evidence indicates that cTns are sensitive and specific biomarkers of cardiac injury from varying causes in both animals and humans. Accordingly, monitoring cTns can help ensure patient safety during the clinical evaluation of new drugs. In addition, preclinical characterization of cardiac risk and cTns as biomarkers of that risk can guide relevant clinical application and interpretation. We summarize here the outcomes of the workshop which included consensus statements, recommendations for further research, and a proposal for a cross-disciplinary group of clinical, regulatory, and drug development scientists to collaborate in such research.

Evaluating whether a new medication prolongs QT intervals is a critical safety activity that is conducted in a sensitive animal model during non-clinical drug development. The importance of QT liability detection has been reinforced by non-clinical [International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) S7B] and clinical (ICH E14) regulatory guidance from the International Conference on Harmonization. A key challenge for the cardiovascular safety community is to understand how the finding from a non-clinical in vivo QT assay in animals predicts the outcomes of a clinical QT evaluation in humans. The Health and Environmental Sciences Institute Pro-Arrhythmia Working Group performed a literature search (1960–2011) to identify both human and non-rodent animal studies that assessed QT signal concordance between species and identified drugs that prolonged or did not prolong the QT interval. The main finding was the excellent agreement between QT results in humans and non-rodent animals. Ninety-one percent (21 of 23) of drugs that prolonged the QT interval in humans also did so in animals, and 88% (15 of 17) of drugs that did not prolong the QT interval in humans had no effect on animals. This suggests that QT interval data derived from relevant non-rodent models has a 90% chance of predicting QT findings in humans. Disagreement can occur, but in the limited cases of QT discordance we identified, there appeared to be plausible explanations for the underlying disconnect between the human and non-rodent animal QT outcomes.

Differences were examined between male and female Sprague-Dawley rats in the response of 16 urinary biomarkers (measured using several assay platforms) to renal injury produced by gentamicin administered subcutaneously for 10 days at a dosage of 75 mg/kg. Urinary biomarkers expressed as fold difference from contemporaneous controls and renal histopathology were assessed after 3 and 10 doses. On day 4, minimal proximal tubular changes were observed microscopically in all males but no females; on day 11, more extensive and more severe injury was observed to a similar extent in all animals of both sexes. Modest increases (maximum 5-fold) in all urinary biomarkers (except epidermal growth factor [EGF], which was decreased) on day 4 and marked elevations (maximum 271-fold) on day 11 were seen consistently in both sexes. However, the magnitude of the increases differed between the sexes. On day 4, despite the lack of tubular injury, many biomarkers were more elevated in females than males but this rarely led to statistically significant sex differences; only 2 biomarkers (β2-microglobulin and total protein) showed a greater increase in males than females in line with the histopathology. On day 11, there were many more biomarkers that showed a statistically significant difference between the sexes in fold change with treatment; in line with the results on day 4, the majority of biomarkers were more increased in females than males. It remains unresolved if sex differences in the magnitude of biomarker response at injury threshold would lead to any difference in diagnostic interpretation between the sexes. These data highlight the need for publication of more studies using animals of both sexes to fully explore the influence of sex on the diagnostic performance of the novel biomarkers.

Introduction : The evaluation of cardiovascular side-effects is a critical element in the development of all new drugs and chemicals. Cardiac safety issues are a major cause of attrition and withdrawal due to adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in pharmaceutical drug development. Methods : The evolution of the HESI Technical Committee on Cardiac Safety from 2000-2013 is presented as an example of an effective international consortium of academic, government, and industry scientists working to improve cardiac safety. Results and Discussion : The HESI Technical Committee Working Groups facilitated the development of a variety of platforms for resource sharing and communication among experts that led to innovative strategies for improved drug safety. The positive impacts arising from these Working Groups are described in this article.

As a result of an increasing recognition of a dearth of translational safety biomarkers, the concept for an ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) collaborative biomarker research program was developed in 2002. This project was driven by a shared awareness across the pharmaceutical industry, research, and regulatory communities of the limited data on the sensitivity, specificity, and translational relevance of existing biomarkers. Together these factors contributed to a potentially significant barrier to the clinical development of candidate medicines that exhibited organ toxicity in pre-clinical studies. At the same time, there was a growing conviction that the evolving ‘omic' technologies had the potential to aid the discovery of new biomarkers. HESI accordingly proposed to establish a new program of activities with several objectives. This chapter describes the setting up of this program, and its initial outcomes.

N-phenylanthranilic acid is a chloride channel blocker that causes renal papillary necrosis in rats. Studies were conducted in two strains of male rats to evaluate novel biomarkers of nephrotoxicity. Han-Wistar rats were given daily oral doses of 50, 350, or up to 700 mg/kg/day of NPAA, and Sprague-Dawley rats were given 50 or 400 mg/kg/day of NPAA. Rats were euthanized on days 8 and 15. The candidate kidney injury biomarkers renal papillary antigen-1 (RPA-1, for collecting duct injury), clusterin (for general kidney injury), α-glutathione-S-transferase (a proximal tubular marker), and µ-glutathione-S-transferase (a distal tubular marker) were measured in urine by enzyme immunoassay. Characteristic degeneration and necrosis of the collecting duct and renal papilla were observed in Han-Wistar rats at the high dose on day 8 and at the mid and high doses on day 15, and in Sprague-Dawley rats given the high dose on days 8 and 15. Increases in urinary RPA-1, and to a lesser extent urine clusterin, were generally associated with the presence of collecting duct injury and were more sensitive than BUN and serum creatinine. On the other hand, decreases in α-glutathione-S-transferase without proximal tubule lesions in both strains and decreases in µ-glutathione-S-transferase in Sprague-Dawley rats only were not associated with morphological proximal or distal tubule abnormalities, so both were of less utility. It was concluded that RPA-1 is a new biomarker with utility in the detection of collecting duct injury in papillary necrosis in male rats.

Cardiovascular (CV) safety concerns are a significant source of drug development attrition in the pharmaceutical industry today. Though current nonclinical testing paradigms have largely prevented catastrophic CV events in Phase I studies, many challenges relating to the inability of current nonclinical safety testing strategies to model patient outcomes persist. Contemporary approaches include a spectrum of evaluations of CV structure and function in a variety of laboratory animal species. These approaches might be improved with a more holistic integration of these evaluations in repeat-dose studies, addition of novel endpoints with greater sensitivity and translational application, and use of more relevant animal models. Particular opportunities present with advances in imaging capabilities applicable to rodent and non-rodent species, technical capabilities for measuring CV function in repeat-dose animal studies, detection and quantitation of microRNAs and wider use of alternative animal models. Strategic application of these novel opportunities considering putative CV risk associated with the molecular drug target as well as inherent risks present in the target patient population could tailor or ‘personalize’ nonclinical safety assessment as a more translational evaluation. This paper is a call to action for the clinical and nonclinical drug safety communities to assess these opportunities to determine their utility in filling potential gaps in our current cardiovascular safety testing paradigms.

There are several recent examples where clinically significant, safety-related, drug effects on hemodynamics or cardiac function were not apparent until large clinical trials were completed or the drugs entered the consumer market. Such late-stage safety issues can have significant impact on patient health and consumer confidence, as well as ramifications for the regulatory, pharmaceutical, and financial communities. This manuscript provides recommendations that evolved from a 2009 HESI workshop on the need for improved translation of nonclinical cardiovascular effects to the clinical arena. The authors conclude that expanded and improved efforts to perform sensitive yet specific evaluations of functional cardiovascular parameters in nonclinical studies will allow pharmaceutical companies to identify suspect drugs early in the discovery and development process while allowing promising drugs to proceed into clinical development.

Marked successes in treating a wide variety of malignancies in both adults and children have raised concerns about the cardiotoxic sequelae of several mainstream and emerging cancer therapies. There is a critical need for the health care community to more quickly and reliably identify the unique treatment-related cardiac risks facing patients with cancer. Meeting these needs will likely involve identifying new biomarkers of early and reversible cardiotoxicity, designing and optimizing dosing and drug selection, and developing oncology drugs that can be administered with protectant therapies to improve safety profiles. Non-clinical studies offer the opportunity to more thoroughly characterize underlying biological mechanisms that might aid in designing and optimizing safer drugs. The Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI), a global, non-profit institute that promotes multi-sector scientific partnerships along with other academic, government, patient-advocacy, and clinical partners, proposes to develop novel collaborations to develop new ways of performing non-clinical safety assessments that will benefit patient quality of life.

Cisplatin is an anticancer agent that induces renal proximal tubule lesions in many species. Studies were conducted in Sprague-Dawley and Han-Wistar rats to evaluate the utility of novel preclinical biomarkers of nephrotoxicity for renal lesions caused by this compound. Groups of 10 males of each strain were given a single intraperitoneal injection of 0.3, 1, or 3 mg/kg cisplatin and were sacrificed on days 2, 3, and 5. The novel biomarkers α-glutathione-S-transferase (α-GST) (for proximal tubular injury), μ-glutathione-S-transferase (μ-GST) (for distal tubular injury), clusterin (for general kidney injury), and renal papillary antigen-1 (RPA-1) (for collecting duct injury) were measured in urine by enzyme immunoassay. Histologically, degeneration and necrosis of the S3 segment of the renal proximal tubule were observed on day 2 (Han-Wistar) and days 3 and 5 (both strains) at 1 and 3 mg/kg. Results showed that in both strains of rats, urinary α-GST and clusterin can be detected in urine soon after injury, are more sensitive than BUN and serum creatinine, and therefore are usable as noninvasive biomarkers of proximal tubule injury. Changes in both μ-GST or RPA-1 were considered to represent secondary minor effects of proximal tubular injury on distal segments of the nephron.

Cardiovascular safety concerns are a significant cause of attrition in the development of new drugs (Lasser et al., 2002). This attrition has significant public health implications and also contributes to the rising cost of developing new drugs. However, a better understanding of the inter-relationship between nonclinical and clinical predictors/measures of cardiovascular risk as well as a more integrated and predictive development strategy could dramatically augment the development of safe and effective medicines for patients in need. In response to this need, a consortium of industrial, academic, and government scientists designed and executed a three day 'think tank' under the auspices of the non-profit ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (ILSI HESI) in June 2009 in Washington, D.C. This highly interactive scientific forum provided a unique opportunity for experts with diverse cardiovascular-related expertise to collectively discuss issues, challenges, and opportunities to improve the overall pharmaceutical cardiovascular safety assessment paradigm. This article identifies the major points of consensus and recommendations stemming from this workshop.