Nina Hasiwa

A roadmap for the development of alternative (non-animal) methods for systemic toxicity testing - t4 report

Systemic toxicity testing forms the cornerstone for the safety evaluation of substances. Pressures to move from traditional animal models to novel technologies arise from various concerns, including: the need to evaluate large numbers of previously untested chemicals and new products (such as nanoparticles or cell therapies), the limited predictivity of traditional tests for human health effects, duration and costs of current approaches, and animal welfare considerations. The latter holds especially true in the context of the scheduled 2013 marketing ban on cosmetic ingredients tested for systemic toxicity. Based on a major analysis of the status of alternative methods (Adler et al., 2011) and its independent review (Hartung et al., 2011), the present report proposes a roadmap for how to overcome the acknowledged scientific gaps for the full replacement of systemic toxicity testing using animals. Five whitepapers were commissioned addressing toxicokinetics, skin sensitization, repeated-dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, and reproductive toxicity testing. An expert workshop of 35 participants from Europe and the US discussed and refined these whitepapers, which were subsequently compiled to form the present report. By prioritizing the many options to move the field forward, the expert group hopes to advance regulatory science.

Consensus Report on the Future of Animal-Free Systemic Toxicity Testing

Since March 2013, animal use for cosmetics testing for the European market has been banned. This requires a renewed view on risk assessment in this field. However, in other fields as well, traditional animal experimentation does not always satisfy requirements in safety testing, as the need for human-relevant information is ever increasing. A general strategy for animal-free test approaches was outlined by the US National Research Council`s vision document for Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century in 2007. It is now possible to provide a more defined roadmap on how to implement this vision for the four principal areas of systemic toxicity evaluation: repeat dose organ toxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity and allergy induction (skin sensitization), as well as for the evaluation of toxicant metabolism (toxicokinetics) (Fig. 1). CAAT-Europe assembled experts from Europe, America and Asia to design a scientific roadmap for future risk assessment approaches and the outcome was then further discussed and refined in two consensus meetings with over 200 stakeholders. The key recommendations include: focusing on improving existing methods rather than favoring de novo design; combining hazard testing with toxicokinetics predictions; developing integrated test strategies; incorporating new high content endpoints to classical assays; evolving test validation procedures; promoting collaboration and data-sharing of different industrial sectors; integrating new disciplines, such as systems biology and high throughput screening; and involving regulators early on in the test development process. A focus on data quality, combined with increased attention to the scientific background of a test method, will be important drivers. Information from each test system should be mapped along adverse outcome pathways. Finally, quantitative information on all factors and key events will be fed into systems biology models that allow a probabilistic risk assessment with flexible adaptation to exposure scenarios and individual risk factors.

Validation and quality control of replacement alternatives – current status and future challenges

Alternatives to animal testing have been developed mainly in the fields of toxicology and vaccine testing. Typical examples are the evaluation of phototoxicity, eye irritation or skin corrosion/irritation of cosmetics and industrial chemicals. However, examples can also be found in other biomedical areas, such the control of the quality of drug preparations for pyrogens or for the control of the production process of biologics, such as botulinum neurotoxin. For regulatory purposes, the quality, transferability and predictivity of an alternative method needs to be evaluated. This procedure is called the “validation process” of a new method. It follows defined rules, and several governmental institutions have been established to perform, supervise or advise on this process. As this often results in a delay of method implementation, different alternatives for the evaluation of a methods suitability and quality are under discussion. We describe here the principles of model development and quality control. We also give an overview on methods that have undergone validation. Strengths and shortcomings of traditional approaches are discussed, and new developments and challenges are outlined.

Evidence for the detection of non-endotoxin pyrogens by the whole blood monocyte activation test.

Threats of pyrogenicity were discovered more than a century ago. Measures to determine the safety of parenterals and, more recently, medical devices and cell therapies for human use have been in place for 70 years. Currently, there are three testing possibilities available: the Rabbit Pyrogen Test, the Limulus Amebocyte Lysate test (Bacterial Endotoxin Test), and test systems using human whole blood or human monocytes, called Monocyte Activation Test (MAT). The MAT is based on the human fever reaction and thus most closely reflects the human situation. Unfortunately, regulations and testing guidelines are not fully harmonized, despite formal international validation. Furthermore, data showing that the MAT is capable of covering the totality of possible pyrogens relevant to humans were not included in the MAT validations of the last decade. For this review we collate evidence from published literature, unpublished data of our own, and results from the international validation study to show that there is overwhelming scientific evidence to conclude that the whole blood MAT reliably detects non-endotoxin pyrogens. Therefore, further validation exercises do not seem warranted.

Non-animal models of epithelial barriers (skin, intestine and lung) in research, industrial applications and regulatory toxicology

Models of the outer epithelia of the human body - namely the skin, the intestine and the lung - have found valid applications in both research and industrial settings as attractive alternatives to animal testing. A variety of approaches to model these barriers are currently employed in such fields, ranging from the utilization of ex vivo tissue to reconstructed in vitro models, and further to chip-based technologies, synthetic membrane systems and, of increasing current interest, in silico modeling approaches. An international group of experts in the field of epithelial barriers was convened from academia, industry and regulatory bodies to present both the current state of the art of non-animal models of the skin, intestinal and pulmonary barriers in their various fields of application, and to discuss research-based, industry-driven and regulatory-relevant future directions for both the development of new models and the refinement of existing test methods. Issues of model relevance and preference, validation and standardization, acceptance, and the need for simplicity versus complexity were focal themes of the discussions. The outcomes of workshop presentations and discussions, in relation to both current status and future directions in the utilization and development of epithelial barrier models, are presented by the attending experts in the current report.

Reference compounds for alternative test methods to indicate developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) potential of chemicals: Example lists & criteria for their selection & use

Summary There is a paucity of information concerning the developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) hazard posed by industrial and environmental chemicals. New testing approaches will most likely be based on batteries of alternative and complementary (non-animal) tests. As DNT is assumed to result from the modulation of fundamental neurodevelopmental processes (such as neuronal differentiation, precursor cell migration or neuronal network formation) by chemicals, the first generation of alternative DNT tests target these processes. The advantage of such types of assays is that they capture toxicants with multiple targets and modes-of-action. Moreover, the processes modelled by the assays can be linked to toxicity endophenotypes, i.e. alterations in neural connectivity that form the basis for neurofunctional deficits in man. The authors of this review convened in a workshop to define criteria for the selection of positive/negative controls, to prepare recommendations on their use, and to initiate the setup of a directory of reference chemicals. For initial technical optimization of tests, a set of >50 endpoint-specific control compounds was identified. For further test development, an additional “test” set of 33 chemicals considered to act directly as bona fide DNT toxicants is proposed, and each chemical is annotated to the extent it fulfills these criteria. A tabular compilation of the original literature used to select the test set chemicals provides information on statistical procedures, and toxic/non-toxic doses (both for pups and dams). Suggestions are provided on how to use the >100 compounds (including negative controls) compiled here to address specificity, adversity and use of alternative test systems.