Literature DB >> 25078890

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.

Fiona Sewell1, Kathryn Chapman2, Paul Baldrick3, David Brewster4, Alan Broadmeadow5, Paul Brown6, Leigh Ann Burns-Naas7, Janet Clarke8, Alex Constan9, Jessica Couch10, Oliver Czupalla11, Andy Danks12, Joseph DeGeorge13, Lolke de Haan14, Klaudia Hettinger15, Marilyn Hill16, Matthias Festag17, Abby Jacobs6, David Jacobson-Kram6, Stephan Kopytek18, Helga Lorenz19, Sophia Gry Moesgaard20, Emma Moore21, Markku Pasanen22, Rick Perry23, Ian Ragan24, Sally Robinson25, Petra M Schmitt26, Brian Short27, Beatriz Silva Lima28, Diane Smith29, Sue Sparrow30, Yvette van Bekkum31, David Jones32.   

Abstract

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.
Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3Rs; Dog; Non-clinical; Primate; Recovery; Reduction; Regulatory toxicology; Repeat-dose studies; Reversibility; Rodent

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25078890     DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.07.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol        ISSN: 0273-2300            Impact factor:   3.271


  5 in total

1.  Pioneering better science through the 3Rs: an introduction to the national centre for the replacement, refinement, and reduction of animals in research (NC3Rs).

Authors:  Natalie Burden; Kathryn Chapman; Fiona Sewell; Vicky Robinson
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.232

Review 2.  Safety testing of monoclonal antibodies in non-human primates: Case studies highlighting their impact on human risk assessment.

Authors:  Frank R Brennan; Joy Cavagnaro; Kathleen McKeever; Patricia C Ryan; Melissa M Schutten; John Vahle; Gerhard F Weinbauer; Estelle Marrer-Berger; Lauren E Black
Journal:  MAbs       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 5.857

3.  Testing Chemical Safety: What Is Needed to Ensure the Widespread Application of Non-animal Approaches?

Authors:  Natalie Burden; Fiona Sewell; Kathryn Chapman
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 8.029

4.  Opportunities to Apply the 3Rs in Safety Assessment Programs.

Authors:  Fiona Sewell; Joanna Edwards; Helen Prior; Sally Robinson
Journal:  ILAR J       Date:  2016-12

5.  Justification for species selection for pharmaceutical toxicity studies.

Authors:  Helen Prior; Richard Haworth; Briony Labram; Ruth Roberts; Alison Wolfreys; Fiona Sewell
Journal:  Toxicol Res (Camb)       Date:  2020-11-24       Impact factor: 3.524

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.