The Comet Assay Tails of the (Un)expected

Similar documents
VICH GL23: Studies to evaluate the safety of residues of veterinary drugs in human food: genotoxicity testing

Conflict of Interest Statement

NOTE FOR GUIDANCE ON TOXICOKINETICS: THE ASSESSMENT OF SYSTEMIC EXPOSURE IN TOXICITY STUDIES S3A

MANGANESE & HEALTH: A BALANCE OF STORIES

ICH Topic S1C(R2) Dose Selection for Carcinogenicity Studies of Pharmaceuticals. Step 5

Genotoxicity Testing Strategies: application of the EFSA SC opinion to different legal frameworks in the food and feed area

New Technologies for Predicting Genotoxic Risk in Humans

DOSE SELECTION FOR CARCINOGENICITY STUDIES OF PHARMACEUTICALS *)

Genetic Toxicology: Progress on International Test Guidelines and New Methods

EVALUATION DE LA CANCEROGENESE DES MEDICAMENTS QUOI DE NEUF?

ICH M4E(R2): Revised Guideline on Common Technical Document -- Efficacy

Aug 28 th, 2017 Pierre Daublain

Nonclinical Safety Evaluation of Inhalation Drug Products

Scientific Opinion on the safety of Hostazym X as a feed additive for poultry and pigs 1

WP 6 In vivo genotoxicity

Genetic Toxicology. Toxicology for Industrial and Regulatory Scientists

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HARMONISATION OF TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION OF PHARMACEUTICALS FOR HUMAN USE

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HARMONISATION OF TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION OF PHARMACEUTICALS FOR HUMAN USE

Genotoxicity of formaldehyde in vitro and in vivo. Günter Speit

Practical Application of PBPK in Neonates and Infants, Including Case Studies

Preclinical Requirements for Therapeutic Studies in Humans with Advanced Cancer

Clinical Endpoint Bioequivalence Study Review in ANDA Submissions. Ying Fan, Ph.D.

EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION OF PHARMACOPOEIAL TEXTS FOR USE IN THE ICH REGIONS ON DISINTEGRATION TEST GENERAL CHAPTER Q4B ANNEX 5(R1)

GLOBAL BIOANALYSIS CONSORTIUM

(Z)-1-Chloro-2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (2017)

ICH M7 Guidance and Tests to Investigate the In Vivo Relevance of In Vitro Mutagens

Genotoxicity of 2-Hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone (Lawsone, CAS )

The Opportunity: c-ibs and pain relief with confidence YKP10811

The effect of REACH implementation on genotoxicity and carcinogenicity testing Jan van Benthem

Mitigation of risk and selection of clinical starting dose a PMDA nonclinical perspective

FDA Expectations and Evaluation of Inhalation Toxicology Studies

IMPURITIES: GUIDELINE FOR RESIDUAL SOLVENTS PDE FOR CUMENE

Appropriate Use of Recovery Groups in Nonclinical Toxicity Studies: Value in a Science-Driven Case-by-Case Approach

Comparison of different genotoxicity tests in vitro for assessment of surface water quality E. Dopp, J. Richard, S. Zander-Hauck

ToxStrategies, Inc. and Summit Toxicology

Basic toxicology and biomaterials testing

Antimicrobial AlphaSan Test Report Summary Table 08/21/01

ICH Topic S1B Carcinogenicity: Testing for Carcinogenicity of Pharmaceuticals. Step 5

CONTRAINDICATIONS None.

ECHA Committee for Risk Assessment: Evaluation of the Classification and Labelling of Glyphosate

DMPK. APRIL 27 TH 2017 Jan Neelissen Scientific Adviser Science & Technology

International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use

Maria João Silva H. Louro 1, T. Borges 2, J. Lavinha 1, J.M. Albuquerque 1

Cycloxydim CYCLOXYDIM (179)

Outcome of the pesticides peer review meeting on general recurring issues in mammalian toxicology

Adaptive and Innovative Study Designs to Accelerate Drug Development from First-In-Human to First-In-Patient

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HARMONISATION OF TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION OF PHARMACEUTICALS FOR HUMAN USE

Phase I in clinical drug development

Table of Validated and Accepted Alternative Methods

Mugimane Manjanatha, Ph.D

Human ADME Study Design Considerations in Healthy Subjects and in Patients

Safety of Allura Red AC in feed for cats and dogs

Pharmacokinetic and absolute bioavailability studies in early clinical development using microdose and microtracer approaches.

Read-across illustrative example

Dr. Josef Schlatter Member of the Scientific Committee and EFSA s WG on Novel Foods

PHARMACOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY MANAGEMENT OF CDER CARCINOGENICITY ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE (CAC) AND EXECUTIVE CAC CONTENTS

Safety Study of ATN-249, A New Oral Kallikrein Inhibitor for Hereditary Angioedema

5.36 THIOPHANATE-METHYL (077)

Section 5.3: Preclinical safety data

Development of Genotoxic Impurities Control in Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient

Pharmaceutical Drug Development Consulting

Challenges in environmental risk assessment (ERA) for birds and mammals and link to endocrine disruption (ED) Katharina Ott, BASF SE, Crop Protection

Japanese Regulatory and Industry perspective. Kazuhiro Shimomura, Ph.D. Medicinal Safety Research Laboratories Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd.

The regulatory landscape Stephen White on behalf of the EBF

Evaluation of Potential Carcinogenicity

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) 2,3. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy

International Safety Assessment of Sweeteners

Genotoxic and acute toxic properties of selected synthetic cannabinoids

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) 2, 3

GSC CODEX MESSAGE CCFA48/2016/25

Clinical Trials A Practical Guide to Design, Analysis, and Reporting

Interested parties (organisations or individuals) that commented on the draft document as released for consultation.

Is a Maximal Tolerated Dose in Human useful for drug development?

Regulated bioanalysis status in Japan and notable points of the draft Japanese guideline

Overview of Generic Drug Policy and Introduction of its Review Points/BE Guideline in Japan

Tracer studies in GSK for Discovery and Development

COMMITTEE FOR VETERINARY MEDICINAL PRODUCTS

Interested parties (organisations or individuals) that commented on the draft document as released for consultation.

The EU PIP - a step in Pediatric Drug Development. Thomas Severin Bonn,

LOREAL USA. February 6, Theresa Michelle, M.D.

DIBROMOACETONITRILE. 1. Exposure Data

DICHLOROACETONITRILE. 1. Exposure Data

EMA-EFPIA EFPIA M&S Workshop - Session 3 M&S examples that failed or succeeded to meet regulators expectations

Glyphosate Hazard and Risk Assessment: A Comparison of the Approaches of Two International Agencies

Year in review. Vit Perlik Director of Regulatory Science and Clinical Development

Investigator Responsibilities in Protecting Participants in the Conduct of Bioequivalence Studies Cecilia C. Maramba, MD, MScID

FDA Use of Big Data in Modeling and Simulations

EU assessment of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate

Section 5.2: Pharmacokinetic properties

Janeen A. Skutnik-Wilkinson ICH Topic co-creator EWG Team Member

Absolute bioavailability and pharmacokinetic studies in early clinical development using microdose and microtracer approaches.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Using Accelerator Mass Spectrometry to Explain the Pharmacokinetics of Vismodegib Cornelis E.C.A. Hop

Use of Bridging Justifications to Support the Safety of Excipients in Generic Drug Products

Public Assessment Report Scientific discussion. Anastrozole Bluefish 1 mg film-coated tablets (anastrozole) SE/H/781/01/DC

CVMP assessment report regarding the request for an opinion under Article 30(3) of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004

Comments CLH proposal Cadmium hydroxide

EMA EFPIA M&S Workshop Break-out session no. 4 Theme 3 - M&S to characterize risk-benefit and support label claims

COMMITTEE FOR VETERINARY MEDICINAL PRODUCTS

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET

Transcription:

The Comet Assay Tails of the (Un)expected Use of the in vivo comet assay in pharmaceutical development Bas-jan van der Leede Janssen R&D Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Companies Discovery Sciences Genetic Toxicology ICAW 2015 BEMS satellite meeting 1 sep 2015

Content Pharmaceutical development Guidelines Janssen R&D Genotox strategy Study designs aspects JaCVAM validation EFPIA survey Conclusions 2

Company info Pharmaceuticals Consumer Health Medical Devices & Diagnostics Discovery Sciences Small molecules Large molecules Vaccines Genetic Toxicology Beerse (BELGIUM) 3

Development of a new drug Research Preclinical Development Clinical Early Late I II III Registration/Market Toxicology Pharmacokinetics Bio-analysis Discovery Sciences Development of safe drugs # molecules Screening tests Genetic Toxicology Prediction of cancer risk Regulatory tests 0 5 10 years 4

Genotoxicity Test Systems DNA reactive Non-DNA reactive Comet assay DNA-damage DNA replication Spindle figure AMES Test Gene Mutations Mouse Lymphoma Test (MLT) Pig-a Mutation Assay Structural Chromosome Mutations Mouse Lymphoma Test (MLT) Micronucleus Test (MNT) Chromosome Aberration Test (CAT) Numerical Chromosome Mutations Micronucleus Test (MNT) 5

The International Conference on Harmonisation European Union (EU)... of Technical Requirements for the Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (JPMA) Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Strategies for avoiding in vitro false-positives (In vitro mammalian assay) top concentration: 1 mm (or 500 µg/ml) the maximum concentration should be the lowest concentration at which minimal precipitate is visible in cultures, even if toxicity occurs above the solubility limit (Aardema et al., 2011) In vitro MN test as 3rd option for mammalian cell tests Integration of in vivo MN test in repeat-dose toxicity studies Use of rat blood for micronucleus test (flow cytometric analysis of rat peripheral blood reticulocytes) Confirmatory testing in the case of clearly negative or positive in vitro test results is not usually warranted. 6

The revised ICH S2 guideline (2011) A test for gene mutation in bacteria AMES Option 1 Option 2 CAT/MLT/MNT In vitro mammalian cell test No in vitro mammalian cell test a Negative b Positive Integrated MNT MNT MNT/CAT MNT no 2 nd endpoint/tissue plus 2 nd endpoint/tissue plus 2 nd endpoint/tissue COMET 7

OECD Test Guidelines Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Bacterial Reverse Mutation (Ames) Test: OECD 471 In vitro Mammalian Chromosome Aberration Test: OECD 473 In vitro Mammalian Cell Gene Mutation Test (e.g. Mouse Lymphoma Test): OECD 476 In vitro Mammalian Cell Micronucleus Test: OECD 487 In vivo Mammalian Erythrocyte Micronucleus Test: OECD 474 In vivo Mammalian Bone Marrow Chromosome Aberration Test: OECD 475 In vivo Mammalian Alkaline Comet Assay: OECD 489 8 8

Genotoxicity testing strategy Janssen R&D DRUG DISCOVERY PRECLINICAL DEVELOPMENT & SAFETY NME CLINICAL DEV. Hit to Lead Lead Optimization Late Lead Optimization Early Dev. Late Dev. I, II, III Ames II Screen NEG AMES PLOT POS STOP Pig-a? MNT-TK6 POS Not done MNT + Comet In Vitro MNT-TK6 screen NEG NEG MNT PLOT POS MNT + Comet (add on) Regulatory GLP * PLOT: preclinical lead optimization technologies (SAR, metabolism, agar Ames, specific strains, apoptosis, aneugen vs. clastogen, ROS, ) 9

Genotoxicity testing strategy Janssen R&D Regulatory GLP studies outsourced High investment to stay in compliance with GLP regulations versus the no. of studies conducted Screening studies conducted in-house Short cycling-times Testing multiple cpds in parallel in medium-throughput assays Limited cpd shipment logistics No method transfer (e.g. formulation, bioanalysis) 10

Study Design Aspects - In Vivo Comet Assay Detection of compounds inducing DNA damage in cells of various tissues by means of alkaline comet assay Nucleus DNA damage Single dose/multiple sampling Species: Rat/mouse/. Route: Oral/intravenous/. Samples: Liver/duodenum/. 0h Tmax 24h Multiple dose/single sampling Dose groups: Vehicle Control Low Medium High Positive Control 3-day repeat dose study 0h 24h 48h Tmax after last dose 11

Study Design Aspects - In Vivo Comet Assay Multiple dose/single sampling 0h 24h 48h 48h -Tmax 3-day repeat dose study Species: Rat/mouse/. Route: Oral/intravenous/. Formulation selection Top dose selection Tmax selection Tissue selection Single dose versus repeat dose Samples: Liver/duodenum/. Dose groups: Vehicle Control Low Medium High Positive Control Screening to predict Regulatory 12

Formulation selection Formulation development is ongoing in the drug discovery phase Pharmacokinetic studies are available in support of formulation development Selection of the discovery formulation close to regulatory formulation can be crucial PK studies Formulation Discovery 200 SD Regulatory 200 SD Comet assay Formulation Dose (mg/kg) Top dose (mg/kg) Discovery 2000 3-day RD Regulatory 650 3-day RD Cmax (ng/ml) AUC (ng.h/ml) 2670 31200 7090 137000 3 to 4-fold higher exposure Cmax (ng/ml) 5133 18700 Comet Response Negative Weak Positive 3 to 4-fold higher exposure 13

Top dose selection OECD TG 489 Maximum tolerated dose Toxicity studies (tolerability studies; SD and RD data) Maximum feasible dose Formulation development data Maximum (limit) dose Toxicity studies (non toxic); 2000 mg/kg Exposure data (saturation) 14

Tmax selection Concentration/time curves Pharmacokinetic studies Toxicity studies Exposure data in relevant dose range concentration Cmax Tmax AUC time Single dose phase Repeat dose phase Dose range comet assay: 40-320 mg/kg/day Selected Tmax: 7 hours 640 mg/kg 320 mg/kg 160 mg/kg 40 mg/kg 80 mg/kg/day (RD) 80 mg/kg/day (SD) Tmax 10 mg/kg Tmax 5 mg/kg/day (RD) 5 mg/kg/day (SD) 15

Tissue selection PK/TK data Liver Absorption, clearance and metabolism data Tissue distribution data are very limited in the drug discovery phase PBPK modeling and simulation Stomach Duodenum Colon Kidney In vitro mammalian assay positive in absence or presence of metabolic activation system Liver selected as standard tissue, occasionally additional tissue included in comet assay 16

SD versus RD Repeat dose Standard design (comet assay; combined MNT/comet assay) Single dose Bone marrow toxicity (combined MNT/comet assay) Tissue toxicity (comet assay) 17

SD versus RD Aflatoxin B1 3-day repeat dose comet assay in male rats Oral gavage: 0.25, 0.5, 1 mg/kg/day 1 mg/kg/day was MTD Liver sampling: 3 h after final administration Treatment Vehicle control 0 mg/kg/day Aflatoxin B1 0.25 mg/kg/day N 5 5 % Tail intensity Mean ± SD 0.31 ± 0.15 0.46 ± 0.32 T Histopathology Single cell necrosis (grade 1) Acute inflammation (grade 1) Increase in %TI concomitant with tissue toxicity: Inconclusive Aflatoxin B1 * Single cell necrosis (grade 1-3) 0.5 mg/kg/day 5 0.95 ± 0.56 Acute inflammation (grade 2-3) Aflatoxin B1 *** Single cell necrosis (grade 2-4) 1 mg/kg/day 5 3.30 ± 1.42 Acute inflammation (grade 2-4) Hemorrhage (grade 4) Positive control º 200 mg/kg/day EMS 3 22.93 ± 2.47 Significance versus vehicle control by one-sided t-test: º p < 0.0001 Significance versus vehicle control by one-sided Dunnett's test: * p < 0.05, ** p <0.0001 Significance by one-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra Trend test: p < 0.0001 18

SD versus RD Aflatoxin B1 Single dose comet assay in male rats Oral gavage: 0.5, 1, 2, 4 mg/kg 4 mg/kg was MTD Liver sampling: 3 and 24 h after administration Treatment N % Tail intensity Mean ± SD Vehicle control 0 mg/kg 5 0.37 ± 0.13 Aflatoxin B1 ** 0.5 mg/kg 5 0.63 ± 0.23 Aflatoxin B1 *** 1 mg/kg 5 4.68 ± 2.31 T Histopathology Increase in %TI not concomitant with tissue toxicity at 0.5 and 1 mg/kg: Positive Aflatoxin B1 *** Single cell necrosis (grade 1) 2 mg/kg 5 10.94 ± 9.53 Eosinophilic dark hepatocyte (grade 1) Aflatoxin B1 *** Single cell necrosis (grade 1) 4 mg/kg 5 17.64 ± 5.15 Eosinophilic dark hepatocyte (grade 1) Positive control º 200 mg/kg EMS 3 37.47 ± 8.53 Significance versus vehicle control by one-sided t-test: º p < 0.0001 Significance versus vehicle control by one-sided Dunnett's test: * p < 0.05, ** p <0.001, *** p<0.0001 Significance by one-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra Trend test: T p < 0.0001 19

Planning and communication Many disciplines involved before study conduct ADME Formulation Development Comet Assay Medicinal Chemistry General Toxicology 20

JaCVAM Validation Trial Validation trial with standardized protocol. Pre-validation phase to optimize protocol Assay reproducibility was confirmed among 13 laboratories (including Janssen R&D) 40 coded compounds were evaluated. Janssen R&D tested 3 compounds The assay is concluded to be highly capable of identifying genotoxic compounds. The OECD TG is based on the standardized protocol of the trial. 21

EFPIA Survey - Introduction Survey suggested by the EMA Safety Working Party and conducted by the EFPIA Preclinical Development Committee with the help of comet assay experts from different pharmaceutical companies. Investigation of the experience with the in vivo comet assay for regulatory purpose among European pharmaceutical companies with special attention to potential difficulties in interpretation of study data. The participating companies reported a total of 147 studies (conducted in-house or outsourced). 22

EFPIA Survey - Conclusions Final conclusion on the response in the in vivo comet assay was available for 136 pharmaceutical compounds. Occurrence of difficulties with interpretation of comet assay results is low. Equivocal response (1 study); inconclusive response (3 studies). With additional information (e.g. repeat assay, circumstantial information) a final conclusion could most probably have been drawn. The number of studies with a positive response is relatively low. 14 studies (10%) Positive comet assay results are not related to cytotoxic effects of the compound in the tissue examined. 23

EFPIA Survey - Conclusions The comet assay appears not over-sensitive. Only 10% of the studies conducted as follow-up of a positive in vitro mammalian cell assay showed positive comet assay results. No positive comet assay results with compounds having no genotoxic properties. The comet assay is considered an appropriate second in vivo genotoxicity assay as outlined in the ICH S2(R1) guidance. 10 out of 12 compounds showed positive comet assay results are negative in the in vivo micronucleus assay. Regulatory acceptance of the ICH S2(R1) guidance to mitigate a positive in vitro mammalian cell assay with 2 negative in vivo assays (i.e. micronucleus and comet assay). All 46 cases accepted. 24

Conclusions The predictivity of a screening in vivo comet assay is highly dependent on the information available in the drug discovery phase. Participation in the JaCVAM validation trial greatly contributed to Janssen R&D experience with the in vivo comet assay. The EFPIA survey results demonstrate the robustness of the in vivo comet assay and regulatory acceptance of the current ICH S2 guidance. 25

Thank you for your attention Questions?