| Literature DB >> 28322894 |
Christina L Zuch de Zafra1, Vito G Sasseville2, Steven Matsumoto3, Christian Freichel4, Mark Milton5, Timothy K MacLachlan2, Cindy Farman6, Iona Raymond3, Swati Gupta3, Ronald Newton2, Elke-Astrid Atzpodien4, Evan A Thackaberry6.
Abstract
The nonclinical safety evaluation of therapeutic drug candidates is commonly conducted in two species (rodent and non-rodent) in keeping with international health authority guidance. Biologic drugs typically have restricted species cross-reactivity, necessitating the evaluation of safety in non-human primates and thus limiting the utility of lower order species. Safety studies of cross-reactive ocular biologic drug candidates have been conducted in rabbits as a second toxicology species, despite the fact that rabbits are not a rodent species. Such studies are often confounded by the development of anti-drug antibodies and severe ocular inflammation, the latter requiring studies to be terminated prematurely for animal welfare reasons. Notably, these confounding factors preclude the interpretation of safety. Nonclinical toxicology programs should be designed with consideration of ethical animal use and 3Rs principles (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement). The experience of several pharmaceutical sponsors, demonstrating that toxicology studies of ocular (intravitreal and topical ocular) biologic drug candidates in the rabbit are of limited interpretive value, calls into question the utility of such studies in this species and indicates that such studies should not be conducted.Entities:
Keywords: 3Rs; Anti-drug antibody; Biologic; Inflammation; Ocular; Ophthalmic; Rabbit
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28322894 DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.03.013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Regul Toxicol Pharmacol ISSN: 0273-2300 Impact factor: 3.271