Kenneth L. Hastings

Drug-induced phospholipidosis: issues and future directions

Numerous drugs containing a cationic amphiphilic structure are capable of inducing phospholipidosis in cells under conditions of in vivo administration or ex vivo incubation. The principal characteristics of this condition include the reversible accumulation of polar phospholipids in association with the development of unicentric or multicentric lamellated bodies within cells. There is an abundance of data providing an understanding of potential mechanisms for the induction of phospholipidosis; however, the process is likely to be complex and may differ from one drug to another. The functional consequences of the presence of this condition on cellular or tissue function are not well understood. The general consensus is that the condition is an adaptive response rather than a toxicological manifestation; however, additional studies to examine this question are needed. Until this issue is resolved, concerns about phospholipidosis will continue to exist at regulatory agencies. Procedures for the screening of potential phospholipogenic candidate compounds are available. In contrast, a clear need exists for the identification of valid biomarkers to assess the development of phospholipidosis in preclinical and clinical studies.

Development of a Phospholipidosis Database and Predictive Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) Models

ABSTRACT Drug-induced phospholipidosis (PL) is a condition characterized by the accumulation of phospholipids and drug in lysosomes, and is found in a variety of tissue types. PL is frequently manifested in preclinical studies and may delay or prevent the development of pharmaceuticals. This report describes the construction of a database of PL findings in a variety of animal species and its use as a training data set for computational toxicology software. PL data and chemical structures were compiled from the published literature, existing pharmaceutical databases, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) internal reports yielding a total of 583 compounds suitable for modeling. The database contained 190 (33%) positive drugs and 393 (77%) negative drugs, of which 39 were electron microscopy–confirmed negative compounds and 354 were classified as negatives due to the absence of positive reported data. Of the 190 positive findings, 76 were electron microscopy confirmed and 114 were considered positive based on other evidence. Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models were constructed using two commercially available software programs, MC4PC and MDL-QSAR, and internal cross-validation (10 × 10%) experiments were performed to assess their predictive performance. Performance parameters for the MC4PC model were specificity 92%, sensitivity 50%, concordance 78%, positive predictivity 76%, and negative predictivity 78%. For MDL-QSAR, predictive performance was similar: specificity 80%, sensitivity 76%, concordance 79%, positive predictivity 65%, and negative predictivity 87%. By combining the output of the two QSAR programs, the overall predictive performance was vastly improved and sensitivity could be optimized to 81% without significant loss of specificity (79%). Many of the structural alerts and significant molecular descriptors obtained from the QSAR software were found to be associated with parts of active molecules known for their cationic amphiphilic drug (CAD) properties supporting the hypothesis that the endpoint of PL is statistically correlated with chemical structure. QSAR models can be useful tools for screening drug candidate molecules for potential PL.

Evaluation of a lymph node proliferation assay for its ability to detect pharmaceuticals with potential to cause immune-mediated drug reactions.

Hypersensitivity reactions to systemically administered drugs cannot be predicted using available preclinical models. This research is a collaborative project to evaluate the ability of the Lymph Node Proliferation Assay (LNPA) to predict systemic hypersensitivity caused by pharmaceuticals. The assay design is a modification of the Local Lymph Node Assay with the major modification being injection of the test substance subcutaneously to achieve a known systemic exposure to the drug. Fourteen compounds were evaluated in the LNPA. These were two clinically negative drugs (Metformin, phenobarbital), an assay positive control (streptozotocin), eight human hypersensitivity positive drugs (sulfamethoxazole, procainamide, clonidine, ofloxacin, nevirapine, abacavir, lamotrigine, zomepirac), and 3 investigational drugs (CM40874, CM40954 and CM40420), one of which caused hypersensitivity in primates. Hypersensitivity-positive drugs were classified as such based on at least two of three independent data sources: U.S. FDA postmarketing database, drug labeling information, and clinical trial data. All drugs were tested in multiple laboratories for a total of 2–12 evaluations per compound. The pure drug substance was used for testing if it could be obtained commercially, otherwise the marketed drug formulation was used. Neither of the negative control drugs showed a positive reaction in the test system. Four of the eight hypersensitivity positive drugs showed a mixed or positive reaction. Two of the three investigational compounds gave a positive response. A smaller number of LNPAs were run concurrently using footpad injection and evaluation of the popliteal lymph node and gave generally comparable results. Additional development may increase the reproducibility of the assay and facilitate detection of drugs that require metabolic activation to become allergenic, or drugs for which there is dose-limiting toxicity. The data suggest that this method might be useful as a first-line screen to identify candidate drugs that are more likely to cause a high prevalence of human drug hypersensitivity.

Assessment of the immunotoxic potential of human pharmaceuticals:a workshop report

The assessment of the immunotoxic potential of human pharmaceuticals has drawn considerable attention worldwide in the past few years. In Europe, the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products released its immunotoxicity guidance documents. The Food and Drug Administrations Center for Drug Evaluation and Research in the United States and the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare are in the process of finalizing similar guidance documents. This report summarizes the discussions on drug immunotoxicity assessment held at a November 2001 DIA workshop held in Noordwijk, The Netherlands. This workshop revealed that an important issue for company attendees was the timing of the immunotoxicity studies during the drug development process. The Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products requires that immunotoxicity endpoints be monitored for all new compounds. Industry has interpreted this requirement, and the expectation that these endpoints be studied in a 28-day repeated dose study in rats, as obligatory immunotoxicity testing for all new compounds, regardless of the stage of development. The Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products requirements, however, are applicable only at the stage of the marketing application. Workshop participants agreed that immunotoxicity screening should preferably be carried out prior or parallel to Phase 2 development. This will substantially reduce the number of compounds that require enhanced testing for immunotoxicity (approximately 80% of the compounds are dropped from development after Phase 1) and reduce the use of animals. Presentations and discussions at the workshop also demonstrated that there is a strong scientific basis for European requirements as included in the Revised Note for Guidance on Repeated Dose Toxicity Testing. For example, not evaluating the response to a T-cell-dependent antigen would have missed the immunotoxicological effects of several compounds. This is probably due to the dynamic nature of the immune system whereby immune effects are best demonstrated using an immune function assay, as opposed to reliance on an essentially static analysis such as histopathology.

Pre-clinical methods for detecting the hypersensitivity potential of pharmaceuticals: regulatory considerations☆

Immune-based systemic hypersensitivities account for a significant number of adverse drug reactions. There appear to be no adequate nonclinical models to predict systemic hypersensitivity to small molecular weight drugs. Although there are very good methods for detecting drugs that can induce contact sensitization, these have not been successfully adapted for prediction of systemic hypersensitivity. Several factors have made the development of adequate models difficult. The term systemic hypersensitivity encompases many discrete immunopathologies. Each type of immunopathology presumably is the result of a specific cluster of immunologic and biochemical phenomena. Certainly other factors, such as genetic predisposition, metabolic idiosyncrasies, and concomitant diseases, further complicate the problem. Therefore, it may be difficult to find common mechanisms upon which to construct adequate models to predict specific types of systemic hypersensitivity reactions. There is some reason to hope, however, that adequate methods could be developed for at least identifying drugs that have the potential to produce signs indicative of a general hazard for immune-based reactions.

Development of the ICH Guidelines for Immunotoxicology Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals Using a Survey of Industry Practices

An anonymous survey of pharmaceutical industry practices for immunotoxicology evaluation was conducted. This was in support of the development of the guideline on the preclinical evaluation of unintended modulation of the immune system for the International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. The survey was conducted in two phases in 2003 and 2004. A total of 64 responses were received of which 45 were included in the formal evaluation. The remaining compounds were excluded because they were cytotoxic anti-neoplastic drugs (N = 7), or due to insufficient information (N = 12). The purpose of the survey was to gather data on the correlation between routine toxicology studies (RTS) and additional immunotoxicological studies (AIS). The results of the survey were evaluated by the Expert Working Group (EWG) and classified as to positive or negative findings in RTS and AIS. The results of the survey showed that for 27 of 45 compounds (60%), the RTS and AIS endpoints were in agreement. In 12 of 45 cases (27%), the RTS endpoints showed immune modulation not observed in the AIS assays. Finally for 6 of 45 drugs (13%) a response was seen with the AIS methods where no significant effect was observed in the RTS endpoints. Length of dosing and the number of tests evaluated were similar in all groups. The groups where RTS detected signs of immunosuppression were more likely to have been dosed at or above MTD. This data contributed to the consensus in the EWG that routine immune function testing as an initial screen for all new drugs is not required. Instead, a weight-of-evidence approach including RTS and other causes for concern is recommended to identify the need for additional immunotoxicity studies.

Summary of a workshop on nonclinical and clinical immunotoxicity assessment of immunomodulatory drugs

The number of anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory drugs being developed in the pharmaceutical industry has increased considerably in the past decade. This increase in research and development has been paralleled by questions from both regulatory agencies and industry on how best to assess decreased host resistance to infections or adverse immunostimulation caused by immunomodulatory agents such as anti-cytokine antibodies (e.g., the tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors), anti-adhesion molecule antibodies (e.g., anti-α-4 integrin inhibitors) and immunostimulatory molecules (e.g., anti-CD28 antibodies). Although several methods have been developed for nonclinical assessment of immunotoxicity, highly publicized adverse events have brought to light significant gaps in the application of nonclinical immunotoxicity testing in assessing potential risk in humans. Confounding this problem is inconsistent application of immunotoxicology methods for risk assessment within the scientific community, limited understanding of appropriate immunotoxicity testing strategy for immunomodulators and inconsistent testing requests by regulatory agencies. To address these concerns, The Immunotoxicology Technical Committee (ITC) of the International Life Science Institute (ILSI) Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) organized a workshop on Immunomodulators and Clinical Immunotoxicology in May 2007. The Workshop was convened to identify key gaps in nonclinical and clinical immunotoxicity testing of anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory agents and to begin to develop consistent approaches for immunotoxicity testing and risk assessment. This paper summarizes the outcome of the HESI ITC Immunomodulators and Clinical Immunotoxicology Workshop. Topics not discussed at the Workshop were outside the scope of this report. Although more work is needed to develop consistent approaches for immunotoxicity assessment of immunomodulators, this Workshop provided the foundation for future discussion.

Trifluoroacetylation potentiates the humoral immune response to halothane in the guinea pig

Halothane hepatitis appears to result from an inappropriate immune response to the products of halothane metabolism. Attempts to produce an animal model for halothane hepatitis have been largely unsuccessful. Although guinea pigs produce neoantigens following treatment with halothane, the subsequent antibody response is weak, possibly accounting for the failure to produce halothane hepatitis in these animals. In order to increase the antibody response to halothane neoantigens, three methods for trifluoroacetylating proteins were used. Guinea pigs were either treated with S-ethylthiotrifluoroacetate, autologous lymphocytes trifluoroacetylated ex vivo, or immunized with trifluoroacetylated mycobacterial protein, followed by exposure to halothane, and examined for anti-halothane metabolite antibodies (anti-TFA antibodies). Animals treated with S-ethylthiotrifluoroacetate developed anti-TFA antibodies, and following exposure to halothane exhibited an enhanced antibody response. Treatment with trifluoroacetylated lymphocytes also resulted in an enhanced anti-TFA antibody response following halothane exposure. Immunization with trifluoroacetylated mycobacterial proteins resulted in very high anti-TFA antibody titers. However, subsequent exposure to halothane had no observable effect on specific antibody titers. Exposure to halothane, regardless of treatment, resulted in the production of anti-microsomal protein antibodies. Signs of halothane hepatitis were not observed, indicating that enhancement of the humoral immune response does not appear to be sufficient for production of halothane hepatitis.

Immunotoxicity of Pharmaceuticals: Current Knowledge, Testing Strategies, Risk Evaluation & Consequences for Human Health

This paper provides an overview of the DIA workshop on immunotoxicity of pharmaceuticals held on October 2-4, 1996, in Montreux, Switzerland. The importance of immunotoxicity testing, and its current status, are discussed. The workshops agenda: current animal tests and clinical efforts for which preclinical immunotoxicity assays need to be developed, are highlighted. Conclusions from the meeting are provided.

Considerations in Assessing the Immunotoxic Potential of Investigational Drugs

Determination of the potential for an investigational drug to adversely affect the immune system is a standard component of nonclinical toxicology studies. Potential adverse immune effects include drug-induced hypersensitivity, immunosuppression, autoimmunity, immunostimulation, and drug antigenicity. Although immunotoxicology studies are rarely incorporated under a single heading in submissions, sponsors frequently conduct specialized assays to determine immunotoxic effects. Skin and respiratory sensitization studies are usually conducted if a drug is to be administered topically or by the inhalation route, respectively. These studies are designed to model clinical effects rather than to determine sensitization potential based on underlying immune mechanisms. Passive and active anaphylaxis assays are used to demonstrate biological effects indicative of drug antigenicity. Studies designed to determine immunosuppressive or immunostimulatory potential are often conducted when these effects are related to pharmacodynamic properties of the drug. Nonclinical studies designed to detect potential to induce autoimmune reactions are rarely conducted, primarily due to a lack of adequately characterized assays. In addition, newer assays designed to determine sensitization and autoimmunity-inducing potential are being evaluated.