Biomedical subjects

Warren W Ku

Publications and source records attributed to Warren W Ku.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Strategy for genotoxicity testing--metabolic considerations.

The report from the 2002 International Workshop on Genotoxicity Tests (IWGT) Strategy Expert Group emphasized metabolic considerations as an important area to address in developing a common strategy for genotoxicity testing. A working group convened at the 2005 4th IWGT to discuss this area further and propose practical strategy recommendations. To propose a strategy, the working group reviewed: (1) the current status and deficiencies, including examples of carcinogens "missed" in genotoxicity testing, established shortcomings of the standard in vitro induced S9 activation system and drug metabolite case examples; (2) the current status of possible remedies, including alternative S9 sources, other external metabolism systems or genetically engineered test systems; (3) any existing positions or guidance. The working group established consensus principles to guide strategy development. Thus, a human metabolite of interest should be represented in genotoxicity and carcinogenicity testing, including evaluation of alternative genotoxicity in vitro metabolic activation or test systems, and the selection of a carcinogenicity test species showing appropriate biotransformation. Appropriate action triggers need to be defined based on the extent of human exposure, considering any structural knowledge of the metabolite, and when genotoxicity is observed upon in vitro testing in the presence of metabolic activation. These triggers also need to be considered in defining the timing of human pharmaceutical ADME assessments. The working group proposed two strategies to consider; a more proactive approach, which emphasizes early metabolism predictions to drive appropriate hazard assessment; and a retroactive approach to manage safety risks of a unique or "major" metabolite once identified and quantitated from human clinical ADME studies. In both strategies, the assessment of the genotoxic potential of a metabolite could include the use of an alternative or optimized in vitro metabolic activation system, or direct testing of an isolated or synthesized metabolite. The working group also identified specific areas where more data or experiences need to be gained to reach consensus. These included defining a discrete exposure action trigger for safety assessment and when direct testing of a metabolite of interest is warranted versus the use of an alternative in vitro activation system, a universal recommendation for the timing of human ADME studies for drug candidates and the positioning of metabolite structural knowledge (through in silico systems, literature, expert analysis) in supporting metabolite safety qualification. Lastly, the working group outlined future considerations for refining the initially proposed strategies. These included the need for further evaluation of the current in vitro genotoxicity testing protocols that can potentially perturb or reduce the level of metabolic activity (potential alterations in metabolism associated with both the use of some solvents to solubilize test chemicals and testing to the guidance limit dose), and proposing broader evaluations of alternative metabolic activation sources or engineered test systems to further challenge the suitability of (or replace) the current induced liver S9 activation source.

2-Acetylaminofluorene↗

PubMed2006

The application of structure-based assessment to support safety and chemistry diligence to manage genotoxic impurities in active pharmaceutical ingredients during drug development.

Starting materials and intermediates used to synthesize pharmaceuticals are reactive in nature and may be present as impurities in the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) used for preclinical safety studies and clinical trials. Furthermore, starting materials and intermediates may be known or suspected mutagens and/or carcinogens. Therefore, during drug development due diligence need be applied from two perspectives (1) to understand potential mutagenic and carcinogenic risks associated with compounds used for synthesis and (2) to understand the capability of synthetic processes to control genotoxic impurities in the API. Recently, a task force comprised of experts from pharmaceutical industry proposed guidance, with recommendations for classification, testing, qualification and assessing risk of genotoxic impurities. In our experience the proposed structure-based classification, has differentiated 75% of starting materials and intermediates as mutagenic and non-mutagenic with high concordance (92%) when compared with Ames results. Structure-based assessment has been used to identify genotoxic hazards, and prompted evaluation of fate of genotoxic impurities in API. These two assessments (safety and chemistry) culminate in identification of genotoxic impurities known or suspected to exceed acceptable levels in API, thereby triggering actions needed to assure appropriate control and measurement methods are in place. Hypothetical case studies are presented demonstrating this multi-disciplinary approach.

Drug Contamination↗

PubMed2006

Informed toxicity assessment in drug discovery: systems-based toxicology.

Technological advances in the biological, chemical and in silico sciences have transformed many scientific disciplines, including toxicology. A vast new palate of toxicity testing tools is now available to investigators, enabling the generation of enormous amounts of data using only small amounts of test sample and at relatively low cost. In addition to these tools, the pharmaceutical industry has an urgent need for toxicity testing earlier in the process, based on the recognition that safety issues are the single largest cause of drug candidate attrition from development portfolios and the marketplace. However, along with the opportunity provided by new testing tools comes the dilemma of deciding which tools to use and, equally as important, when and why to use them. It may well be unwise to apply a new toxicity test or screening system simply because one can, as both false positive and false negative outcomes can quickly negate the value of a toxicity test system and may even have a net negative impact on drug discovery productivity. This can be true even of test systems that are considered to be 'validated' in the traditional sense. How then is an investigator or drug discovery organization to decide which of the new tools to use, and when to use them? Proposed herein is a strategy for identifying high-value toxicity testing systems and strategies based on program knowledge and informed decision-making. The decision to apply a certain toxicity testing system in this strategy is informed by knowledge of the pharmacological target, the chemical features of molecules active at the pharmacological target, and existing public domain or institutional learning. This 'fit-for-purpose' approach limits non-targeted or 'uninformed' toxicity screening to only those few test systems with high specificity, strong outcome concordance and molecular relevance to frequently encountered toxicity risks (eg, genotoxicity). Additional toxicity testing and screening is then conducted to address specific known or potential toxicity risks, based on existing knowledge of the target pharmacology and secondary pharmacology or chemical attributes with known or suspect risk, and by active 'interrogation' of both the target and active chemical moieties during the drug discovery process. This model for toxicity testing decision-making is illustrated by two case studies from recent experience.

Animals↗