Literature DB >> 25545315

(Q)SAR assessments of potentially mutagenic impurities: a regulatory perspective on the utility of expert knowledge and data submission.

Mark W Powley1.   

Abstract

(Quantitative) structure activity relationship [(Q)SAR] modeling is the primary tool used to evaluate the mutagenic potential associated with drug impurities. General recommendations regarding the use of (Q)SAR in regulatory decision making have recently been provided in the ICH M7 guideline. Although (Q)SAR alone is capable of achieving reasonable sensitivity and specificity, reliance on a simple positive or negative prediction can be problematic. The key to improving (Q)SAR performance is to integrate supporting information, also referred to as expert knowledge, into the final conclusion. In the regulatory context, expert knowledge is intended to (1) maximize confidence in a (Q)SAR prediction, (2) provide rationale to supersede a positive or negative (Q)SAR prediction, or (3) provide a basis for assessing mutagenicity in absence of a (Q)SAR prediction. Expert knowledge is subjective and is associated with great variability in regards to content and quality. However, it is still a critical component of impurity evaluations and its utility is acknowledged in the ICH M7 guideline. The current paper discusses the use of expert knowledge to support regulatory decision making, describes case studies, and provides recommendations for reporting data from (Q)SAR evaluations. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  (Q)SAR; Drug impurities; ICH M7; Mutagenicity

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25545315     DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.12.012

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


  8 in total

1.  In silico toxicology protocols.

Authors:  Glenn J Myatt; Ernst Ahlberg; Yumi Akahori; David Allen; Alexander Amberg; Lennart T Anger; Aynur Aptula; Scott Auerbach; Lisa Beilke; Phillip Bellion; Romualdo Benigni; Joel Bercu; Ewan D Booth; Dave Bower; Alessandro Brigo; Natalie Burden; Zoryana Cammerer; Mark T D Cronin; Kevin P Cross; Laura Custer; Magdalena Dettwiler; Krista Dobo; Kevin A Ford; Marie C Fortin; Samantha E Gad-McDonald; Nichola Gellatly; Véronique Gervais; Kyle P Glover; Susanne Glowienke; Jacky Van Gompel; Steve Gutsell; Barry Hardy; James S Harvey; Jedd Hillegass; Masamitsu Honma; Jui-Hua Hsieh; Chia-Wen Hsu; Kathy Hughes; Candice Johnson; Robert Jolly; David Jones; Ray Kemper; Michelle O Kenyon; Marlene T Kim; Naomi L Kruhlak; Sunil A Kulkarni; Klaus Kümmerer; Penny Leavitt; Bernhard Majer; Scott Masten; Scott Miller; Janet Moser; Moiz Mumtaz; Wolfgang Muster; Louise Neilson; Tudor I Oprea; Grace Patlewicz; Alexandre Paulino; Elena Lo Piparo; Mark Powley; Donald P Quigley; M Vijayaraj Reddy; Andrea-Nicole Richarz; Patricia Ruiz; Benoit Schilter; Rositsa Serafimova; Wendy Simpson; Lidiya Stavitskaya; Reinhard Stidl; Diana Suarez-Rodriguez; David T Szabo; Andrew Teasdale; Alejandra Trejo-Martin; Jean-Pierre Valentin; Anna Vuorinen; Brian A Wall; Pete Watts; Angela T White; Joerg Wichard; Kristine L Witt; Adam Woolley; David Woolley; Craig Zwickl; Catrin Hasselgren
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 3.271

2.  Implementation of in silico toxicology protocols within a visual and interactive hazard assessment platform.

Authors:  Glenn J Myatt; Arianna Bassan; Dave Bower; Candice Johnson; Scott Miller; Manuela Pavan; Kevin P Cross
Journal:  Comput Toxicol       Date:  2021-10-28

3.  Use of In Silico Methods for Regulatory Toxicological Assessment of Pharmaceutical Impurities.

Authors:  Simona Kovarich; Claudia Ileana Cappelli
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

4.  Use of Lhasa Limited Products for the In Silico Prediction of Drug Toxicity.

Authors:  David J Ponting; Michael J Burns; Robert S Foster; Rachel Hemingway; Grace Kocks; Donna S MacMillan; Andrew L Shannon-Little; Rachael E Tennant; Jessica R Tidmarsh; David J Yeo
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

5.  Transitioning to composite bacterial mutagenicity models in ICH M7 (Q)SAR analyses.

Authors:  Curran Landry; Marlene T Kim; Naomi L Kruhlak; Kevin P Cross; Roustem Saiakhov; Suman Chakravarti; Lidiya Stavitskaya
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 3.271

6.  Extending (Q)SARs to incorporate proprietary knowledge for regulatory purposes: is aromatic N-oxide a structural alert for predicting DNA-reactive mutagenicity?

Authors:  Alexander Amberg; Lennart T Anger; Joel Bercu; David Bower; Kevin P Cross; Laura Custer; James S Harvey; Catrin Hasselgren; Masamitsu Honma; Candice Johnson; Robert Jolly; Michelle O Kenyon; Naomi L Kruhlak; Penny Leavitt; Donald P Quigley; Scott Miller; David Snodin; Lidiya Stavitskaya; Andrew Teasdale; Alejandra Trejo-Martin; Angela T White; Joerg Wichard; Glenn J Myatt
Journal:  Mutagenesis       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 3.000

7.  A cross-industry collaboration to assess if acute oral toxicity (Q)SAR models are fit-for-purpose for GHS classification and labelling.

Authors:  Joel Bercu; Melisa J Masuda-Herrera; Alejandra Trejo-Martin; Catrin Hasselgren; Jean Lord; Jessica Graham; Matthew Schmitz; Lawrence Milchak; Colin Owens; Surya Hari Lal; Richard Marchese Robinson; Sarah Whalley; Phillip Bellion; Anna Vuorinen; Kamila Gromek; William A Hawkins; Iris van de Gevel; Kathleen Vriens; Raymond Kemper; Russell Naven; Pierre Ferrer; Glenn J Myatt
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2020-12-17       Impact factor: 3.271

8.  Management of pharmaceutical ICH M7 (Q)SAR predictions - The impact of model updates.

Authors:  Catrin Hasselgren; Joel Bercu; Alex Cayley; Kevin Cross; Susanne Glowienke; Naomi Kruhlak; Wolfgang Muster; John Nicolette; M Vijayaraj Reddy; Roustem Saiakhov; Krista Dobo
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2020-10-13       Impact factor: 3.271

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.