1
|
Kinsner-Ovaskainen A, Maxwell G, Kreysa J, Barroso J, Adriaens E, Alépée N, Berg N, Bremer S, Coecke S, Comenges JZ, Corvi R, Casati S, Dal Negro G, Marrec-Fairley M, Griesinger C, Halder M, Heisler E, Hirmann D, Kleensang A, Kopp-Schneider A, Lapenna S, Munn S, Prieto P, Schechtman L, Schultz T, Vidal JM, Worth A, Zuang V. Report of the EPAA–ECVAM Workshop on the Validation of Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS). Altern Lab Anim 2012; 40:175-81. [DOI: 10.1177/026119291204000310] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
The use of Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS) permits the combination of diverse types of chemical and toxicological data for the purposes of hazard identification and characterisation. In November 2008, the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA), together with the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), held a workshop on Overcoming Barriers to Validation of Non-animal Partial Replacement Methods/Integrated Testing Strategies, in Ispra, Italy, to discuss the extent to which current ECVAM approaches to validation can be used to evaluate partial replacement in vitro test methods (i.e. as potential ITS components) and ITS themselves. The main conclusions of these discussions were that formal validation was only considered necessary for regulatory purposes (e.g. the replacement of a test guideline), and that current ECVAM approaches to validation should be adapted to accommodate such test methods (1). With these conclusions in mind, a follow-up EPAA–ECVAM workshop was held in October 2009, to discuss the extent to which existing validation principles are applicable to the validation of ITS test methods, and to develop a draft approach for the validation of such test methods and/or overall ITS for regulatory purposes. This report summarises the workshop discussions that started with a review of the current validation methodologies and the presentation of two case studies (skin sensitisation and acute toxicity), before covering the definition of ITS and their components, including their validation and regulatory acceptance. The following main conclusions/recommendations were made: that the validation of a partial replacement test method (for application as part of a testing strategy) should be differentiated from the validation of an in vitro test method for application as a stand-alone replacement, especially with regard to its predictive capacity; that, in the former case, the predictive capacity of the whole testing strategy (rather than of the individual test methods) would be more important, especially if the individual test methods had a high biological relevance; that ITS allowing for flexible and ad hoc approaches cannot be validated, whereas the validation of clearly defined ITS would be feasible, although practically quite difficult; and that test method developers should be encouraged to develop and submit to ECVAM not only full replacement test methods, but also partial replacement methods to be placed as parts of testing strategies. The added value from the formal validation of testing strategies, and the requirements needed in view of regulatory acceptance of the data, require further informed discussion within the EPAA forum on the basis of case studies provided by industry.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Gavin Maxwell
- Unilever, Colworth Science Park, Sharnbrook, Bedford, UK
| | - Joachim Kreysa
- Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
| | - João Barroso
- Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
| | | | | | | | - Susanne Bremer
- Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
| | - Sandra Coecke
- Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
| | - José Z. Comenges
- Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
| | - Raffaella Corvi
- Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
| | - Silvia Casati
- Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
| | | | | | - Claudius Griesinger
- Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
| | - Marlies Halder
- Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
| | | | | | - André Kleensang
- Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
| | | | - Silvia Lapenna
- Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
| | - Sharon Munn
- Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
| | - Pilar Prieto
- Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
| | - Len Schechtman
- Innovative Toxicology Consulting, LLC, Lake Worth, FL, USA
| | - Terry Schultz
- Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Environment Directorate, Paris, France
| | | | - Andrew Worth
- Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
| | - Valérie Zuang
- Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Müller L, Kikuchi Y, Probst G, Schechtman L, Shimada H, Sofuni T, Tweats D. ICH-harmonised guidances on genotoxicity testing of pharmaceuticals: evolution, reasoning and impact. Mutat Res 1999; 436:195-225. [PMID: 10354523 DOI: 10.1016/s1383-5742(99)00004-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 109] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
The International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) has convened an expert working group which consisted of the authors of this paper and their respective committees, consulting groups and task forces. Two ICH guidances regarding genotoxicity testing have been issued: S2A, 'Guidance on Specific Aspects of Regulatory Genotoxicity Tests' and S2B, 'Genotoxicity: A Standard Battery for Genotoxicity Testing of Pharmaceuticals.' Together, these guidance documents now form the regulatory backbone for genotoxicity testing and assessment of pharmaceuticals in the European Union, Japan, and the USA. These guidances do not constitute a revolutionary new approach to genotoxicity testing and assessment, instead they are an evolution from preexisting regional guidelines, guidances and technical approaches. Both guidances describe a number of specific criteria as well as a general test philosophy in genotoxicity testing. Although these guidances were previously released within the participating regions in their respective regulatory communiqués, to ensure their wider distribution and better understanding, the texts of the guidances are reproduced here in their entirety (see Appendix A) and the background for the recommendations are described. The establishment of a standard battery for genotoxicity testing of pharmaceuticals was one of the most important issues of the harmonisation effort. This battery currently consists of: (i) a test for gene mutation in bacteria, (ii) an in vitro test with cytogenetic evaluation of chromosomal damage with mammalian cells or an in vitro mouse lymphoma tk assay, (iii) an in vivo test for chromosomal damage using rodent hematopoietic cells. A major change in testing philosophy is the acceptance of the interchangeability of testing for chromosomal aberrations in mammalian cells and the mouse lymphoma tk assay. This agreement was reached on the basis of the extensive review of databases and newly generated experimental data which are in part described in this publication. The authors are fully aware of the fact that some of the recommendations given in these ICH guidances are transient in nature and that the dynamic qualities and ongoing evolution of genetic toxicology makes necessary a continuous maintenance process that would serve to update the guidance as necessary.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Müller
- Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, Seestr. 10, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|