Advertisement

Applications of Toxicogenomics to Nonclinical Drug Development: Regulatory Science Considerations

  • Frank D. Sistare
  • Joseph J. DeGeorge
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology™ book series (MIMB, volume 460)

Summary

Scientists in the pharmaceutical industry have ready access to samples from animal toxicology studies carefully designed to test the safety characteristics of a steady pipeline of agents advancing toward clinical testing. Applications of toxicogenomics to the evaluation of compounds could best be realized if this promising technology could be implemented in these studies fully anchored in the traditional study end points currently used to characterize phenotypic outcome and to support the safe conduct of clinical testing. Regulatory authorities worldwide have declared their support for toxicogenomics and related technological tools to positively impact drug development, and guidance has been published. However, applications of exploratory “omics” technologies to compounds undergoing safety testing remain inhibited due to two core data submission responsibility implications and ambiguities: (1) constraints arising from continual literature surveillance and data reanalysis burdens, under the shadow of looming subsequent reporting requirements to regulatory authorities as gene expression end points loosely linked to safety gain attention in the published literature, and (2) ambiguities in interpretation of validation stature remain between exploratory, probable valid, and known valid safety biomarkers. A proposal is offered to address these regulatory implementation barriers to open access for exploring this technology in prospective drug development animal toxicology studies.

Key Words

biomarker critical path drug development drug safety testing genomics guidance investigative toxicology lead optimization metabolomics proteomics qualification regulation toxicogenomics validation 

References

  1. 1.
    Schena, M., Shalon, D., Davis, R.W., and Brown, P.O. (1995) Quantitative monitoring of gene expression patterns with a complementary DNA microarray. Science 270, 467–470.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ulrich, R. and Friend, S. (2002) Toxicogenomics and drug discovery: will new technologies help us produce better drugs? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 1,84–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Food and Drug Administration. (16 March 2004) Innovation or stagnation: challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medical products. Available at www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/whitepaper.pdf.
  4. 4.
    European Medicines Agency. (23 March 2004) Evaluation of medicines for human use. Discussion paper. The European Medicines Agency road map to 2010: preparing the ground for the future. Available at www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/general/direct/directory/3416303en.pdf. Doc Ref: EMEA/H/34163/03/Rev 2.0.
  5. 5.
    European Medicines Agency. (22 March 2007) Evaluation of medicines for human use. Innovative drug development approaches. Final report from the EMEA/CHMP-Think-Tank Group on Innovative Drug Development. Available at www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/itf/12731807en.pdf. Doc. Ref. EMEA/127318/2007.
  6. 6.
    Kola, I. and Landis, J. (2004) Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 711–715.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chan, V.S.W. and Theilade, M.D. (2005) The use of toxicogenomic data in risk assessment: a regulatory perspective. Clin. Toxicol. 43, 121–126.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Code of Federal Regulations. (2 April 2006) 21 CFR 312.23. Title 21. Food and Drugs, Chapter I. Food and Drug Administration Department of Health and Human Resources, Subchapter D Drugs for Human use, Part 312 Investigational New Drug Application, Subpart B Investigational New Drug Application (IND) Sec. 312.23 IND content and format. Available at a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26mar20071500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/aprqtr/pdf/21cfr312.23.pdf.
  9. 9.
    Food and Drug Administration. (1995) Content and format of investigational new drug applications (inds) for phase 1 studies of drugs, including well-characterized, therapeutic, biotechnology-derived products. Available at www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/clin2.pdf.
  10. 10.
    Petricoin, E.F. III, Hackett, J.L., Lesko, L.J., Puri, R.K., Gutman, S.I., Chumakov, K., et al. (2002) Medical applications of microarray technologies: a regulatory science perspective. Nat. Genet. 32, 474– 479.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Food and Drug Administration. (March 2005) Guidance for industry pharmacogenomic data submissions. Available at www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/6400fnl.pdf.
  12. 12.
    European Medicines Agency. (April 2006) Guideline on Pharmacogenetics Briefing Meetings. Available at www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/pharmacogenetics/2022704en.pdf.
  13. 13.
    European Medicines Agency. (January 2007) Workplan for the Safety Working Party. Available at www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/swp/15242006en.pdf.
  14. 14.
    Food and Drug Administration. (2006) Recommendations for the generation and submission of genomic data. Available at www.fda.gov/cder/genomics/conceptpaper_20061107.pdf.
  15. 15.
    Lesko, L.J., Salerno, R.A., Spear, B.B., Anderson, D.C., Anderson, T., Brazell, C., et al. (2003) Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics in drug development and regulatory decision making: report of the First FDA-PhRMA-DruSafe-PWG Workshop, J. Clin. Pharmacol. 43, 342–358.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wagner, J.A., Williams, S.A., and Webster, C.J. (2007) Biomarkers and surrogate end points for fit-for-purpose development and regulatory evaluation of new drugs. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 81, 104–107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ellinger-Ziegelbauer, H., Stuart, B., Wahle, B., Bomann, W., and Ahr, H.-J. (2004) Characteristic expression profiles induced by genotoxic carcinogens in rat liver. Toxicol. Sci. 77, 19–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nantermet, P.V., Xu, J., Yu, Y., Hodor, P., Holder, D., Adamski, S., et al. (2004) Identification of genetic pathways activated by the androgen receptor during theinduction of proliferation in the ventral prostate gland. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 1310–1322.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kramer, J., Curtiss, S., Kolaja, K., Alden, C., Blomme, E., and Curtiss, W., et al. (2004) Acute molecular markers of rodent hepatic carcinogenesis identified by transcription profiling. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 17, 463–470.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Food and Drug Administration. (May 2001) Guidance for reviewers pharmacology/toxicology review format. Available at www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/4120fnl.pdf.
  21. 21.
    Code of Federal Regulations. (26 March 2007) 21 CFR 314.50. Title 21 Food and Drugs, Chapter I Food and Drug Administration Department of Health and Human Resources, Subchapter D Drugs for Human use, Part 314 Applications for FDA Approval to Market a New Drug, Subpart B Applications Sec. 314.50 Content and format of an application. Available at a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26mar20071500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/aprqtr/pdf/21cfr314.50.pdf.
  22. 22.
    Wong, J.S. and Gill, S.S. (2002) Gene expression changes induced in mouse liver by di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 185,180–196.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Williams, S.A., Slavin, D.E., Wagner, J.A., and Webster, C. (2006) A cost-effectiveness approach to the qualification and acceptance of biomarkers. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 897–902.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goodsaid, F. and Frueh, F. (2006) Process map proposal for the validation of genomic biomarkers. Pharmacogenomics 7, 773–782.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bulera, S.J., Eddy, S.M., Ferguson, E., Jatkoe, T.A., Reindel, J.F., Bleavins, M.R., and De La Iglesia, F.A.. (2001) RNA expression in the early characterization of hepatotoxicants in Wistar rats by high-density DNA microarrays. Hepatology 33, 1239–1258.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hamadeh, H.K., Bushel, P.R., Jayadev, S., Martin, K., DiSorbo, O., Sieber, S., et al. (2002) Gene expression analysis reveals chemical-specific profiles. Toxicol. Sci. 67, 219–231.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hamadeh, H.K., Bushel, P.R., Jayadev, S., DiSorbo, O., Bennett, L., Li, L., et al. (2002) Prediction of compound signature using high density gene expression profiling. Toxicol. Sci. 67, 232–240.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thomas, R.S., Rank, D.R., Penn, S.G., Zastrow, G.M., Hayes, K.R., Pande, K., et al. (2001) Identification of toxicologically predictive gene sets using cDNA microarrays. Mol. Pharmacol. 60, 1189–1194.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Waring, J.F., Jolly, R.A., Ciurlionis, R., Lum, P.Y., Praestgaard, J.T., Morfitt, D.C., et al. (2001) Clustering of hepatotoxins based on mechanism of toxicity using gene expression profiles. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 175, 28–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sistare, F.D. and Vonderscher, J. (2007) Impact on drug development and regulatory review of the qualification of novel biomarkers of nephrotoxicity. Toxicologist 96, 444.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank D. Sistare
    • 1
  • Joseph J. DeGeorge
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory Sciences and Investigative Toxicology, Merck & Co Inc.West Point

Personalised recommendations