Regulatory Toxicological Studies: Identifying Drug-Induced Liver Injury Using Nonclinical Studies
This chapter presents an overview of nonclinical safety assessment and the types of information that may be generated by drug developers for review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Every new drug molecule entering clinical development undergoes the process of safety assessment, a relatively standardized series of in vitro and in vivo examinations of the intrinsic properties of the proposed therapeutic. The goals are hazard characterization, identification of target organs, and determination of a theoretical margin of safety. These studies are usually conducted according to the guidances of the FDA and International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) and to a large extent conducted to the standards of Good Laboratory Practice. The ICH and FDA’s guidances allow investigators to modify safety assessment studies on a case by case basis when scientifically justified.
The components of nonclinical safety assessment include in vitro assessment of affinity for off-target receptors and enzymes, evaluation of the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME), safety pharmacology, and repeat-dose animal studies and may include computer assisted analysis of the chemical structure. Standard in vivo toxicology studies alone are not sufficient to identify the potential for human drug-induced liver injury (DILI). A weight-of-evidence approach (WOE) is recommended. We discuss how each of the components of nonclinical investigation may be used in conjunction to help identify the potential for adverse hepatobiliary effects. Given the scientific flexibility offered by the FDA and ICH guidances, it is important to remember that repeat-dose animal studies may be modified to explore any identified safety signals. This allows for evaluation of possible reactive metabolites and other more subtle signals of drug-induced liver injury that might otherwise be missed in a standard single- or repeat-dose safety assessment study. Because of efforts to reduce, refine, and replace animal work, it becomes especially important to ensure that animal work is optimized. Judicious data-driven modification of the repeat-dose animal studies has the potential to increase the safety of clinical trial participants, to optimize the information obtained and to increase the translational value for the clinic.
Key wordsHepatobiliary Toxicology GLP Nonclinical QSAR Adverse Translational Regulatory
This book chapter reflects the views of the authors and should not be construed to represent FDA’s views or policies.
- 8.Tamaki C, Nagayama T, Hashiba M, Fujiyoshi M, Hizue M, Kodaira H, Nishida M, Suzuki K, Takashima Y, Ogino Y, Yasugi D, Yasuo Yoneta Y, Hisada S, Ohkura T, Nakamura K (2013) Potentials and limitations of nonclinical safety assessment for predicting clinical adverse drug reactions: correlation analysis of 142 approved drugs in Japan (PDF download available). J Toxicol Sci 38(4):581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Obach RS, Kalgutkar AS, Soglia JR, Zhao SX (2008) Can in vitro metabolism-dependent covalent binding data in liver microsomes distinguish hepatotoxic from nonhepatotoxic drugs? An analysis of 18 drugs with consideration of intrinsic clearance and daily dose. Chem Res Toxicol 21(9):1814–1822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Roth AD, Lee, M-Y (2017) Idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (IDILI): potential mechanisms and predictive assays. Biomed Res Int. ePub 4 Jan 2017Google Scholar
- 19.Calabrese EJ, Calabrese EJ, Bachmann KA, Bailer AJ, Bolger PM, Borak J, Cai L, Cedergreen N, Cherian MG, Chiueh CC, Clarkson TW, Cook RR, Diamond DM, Doolittle DJ, Dorato MA, Duke SO, Feinendegen L, Gardner DE, Hart RW, Hastings KL, Hayes AW, Hoffmann GR, Ives JA, Jaworowski Z, Johnson TE, Jonas WB, Kaminski NE, Keller JG, Klaunig JE, Knudsen TB, Kozumbo WJ, Lettieri T, Liu SZ, Maisseu A, Maynard KI, Masoro EJ, McClellan RO, Mehendale HM, Mothersill C, Newlin DB, Nigg HN, Oehme FW, Phalen RF, Philbert MA, Rattan SI, Riviere JE, Rodricks J, Sapolsky RM, Scott BR, Seymour C, Sinclair DA, Smith-Sonneborn J, Snow ET, Spear L, Stevenson DE, Thomas Y, Tubiana M, Williams GM, Mattson MP (2007) Biological stress response terminology: integrating the concepts of adaptive response and preconditioning stress within a hormetic dose-response framework. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 222(1):122–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar