We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byMarcos Game
Modified over 2 years ago
©2012, Genentech Nor Cal SOT Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk for Biotechnology-Derived Therapeutics Tom Gelzleichter September 27 th, 2012
©2012, Genentech 1. Limitations on utility of standard rodent bioassays for biologics 2. Historical approaches for risk assessment of biologics 3. 2011 revisions to ICH S6 4. Examples of revised approach 5. How will these changes impact risk communication? Topics
©2012, Genentech Main Objective of Carcinogenesis Testing for Pharmaceuticals A product-specific assessment of carcinogenic potential is used to communicate risk and provide input to the risk management plan along with labeling proposals, clinical monitoring, post-marketing surveillance
©2012, Genentech 2 year bioassays in general have limited utility for all chemical classes Interpretation difficult due to: –Lack of known negative controls (IARC only classifies one chemical as probably not carcinogenic in humans) –Susceptibility determined by genotype, sex and test conditions Examples: cigarette smoke, arsenic, benzene were challenging to find rodent models that gave positive results Lack of concordance across sexes, species (rarely are tumors found in all 4 genotypes i,.e., rat/mouse/M/F) –Inter-rodent predictivity (rat:mouse) 70-75% Validation efforts have been heavily skewed towards certain chemical classes (plus, nearly all have been genotoxicants) –Poor concordance for immunotoxicants, some hormones Poor reproducibility (only 57% concordance when repeated) Positivity rate is extremely high –In NTP studies, 68% of tested chemicals are positive in at least one of the 4 genotypes –40% of marketed pharmaceuticals and food additives are positive
©2012, Genentech Why are Chronic Rodent Bioassays Still Used? –Most known human carcinogens are positive in at least one of the 4 genotypes tested, when evaluated at MTD –Only 5-10% of positives are strictly rodent carcinogens i.e, has some positive predictive value However, rate of false positives poorly understood Limitations of the assay limit the utility Typically used to inform label, informed consent Rarely will regulatory agencies use this data in isolation for decision-making
©2012, Genentech What About Biologics? Rarely are long term studies in rodents feasible for biologics due to antigenicity concerns or lack of binding Lack of validation data –Limited data for nongenotoxic carcinogens –Virtually no validation efforts with large molecules (e.g., Tg-AC transgenic model) –Known lack of concordance for immunosuppressive agents, many hormones Surrogate molecules: Discouraged given difficulties in verifying that surrogate accurately reflects the biology of clinical candidate Other data: –Data from in class or related drugs –Transgenic/ko –Xenograft studies Limitations in data interpretation and lack of validation limit utility
©2012, Genentech Challenges with Nongenotoxic Drugs: What We’ve Learned From Risk Evaluation of Immunosuppressive Agents
©2012, Genentech Human Neoplasms Associated with 13 Immunosuppressive Drugs TypeDrugs Lymphoma Dexamethasone, prednisone, busulfan, azathioprine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, cyclosporin A, tacrolimus Squamous Cell Carcinoma Prednisone, busulfan, azathioprine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, cyclosporin A, tacrolimus Kaposi Sarcoma Dexamethasone, prednisone, busulfan, azathioprine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, cyclosporin A Urologic Prednisone, azathioprine, mycophenolate, cyclosporin A, tacrolimus Melanoma mycophenolate Multiple cyclophosphamide Source: Bugelski et al.(2010) Int. J. Toxicol. 29(5) 435-66
©2012, Genentech Two year bioassay results for immunosuppresive drugs DrugRat 2 yrMouse 2 yr Abatacept-Lymphomas and mammary tumors (MLV/MMT virus) DexamethasoneNeg- Prednisone-Neg Busulfan-Thymic and ovarian Cyclophosphamidemultiple AzathioprineLymphoma and squamousLymphoma, hemangioendothelioma LeflunomideNegLymphoma and lung MethotrexateNeg MycophenolateNeg CyclosporineNeg TacrolimusNeg sirolimusNegLymphoma and liver everolimusNeg Of the 5 positives, 4 are known genotoxicants Poor concordance with known human risks Only 2 correctly predict specific tumor risks
©2012, Genentech ICH Guidance for Biologics (Original ICH S6, 1997) Standard carc bioassays are generally inappropriate for biotech drugs When there is a concern, “a variety of approaches may be considered to evaluate risk” In case where product is biologically active and nonimmunogenic and other studies have not provided sufficient information to assess risk, then consider a singe rodent bioassay
©2012, Genentech For Products that Support or Induce Proliferation (ICH S6, 1997) Evaluate/review receptor expression in malignant and normal cells Is there evidence that can stimulate growth of normal or malignant cells? Cause for concern? Further studies in relevant model Incorporate sensitive indices of proliferation into chronic studies If biologically active and nonimmunogenic consider long term assay Yes No In vitro evaluations may be sufficient
©2012, Genentech Question: Given the limitations of chronic bioassays and ICH guidance, what type of carc studies have been conducted for biologics? Answer: In reality, very few chronic studies have been conducted that have actually impacted product labels
©2012, Genentech 32 FDA-Licensed MAb’s to date: Two sponsors have conducted preclinical studies that impacted label Generic Name Year Licensed by FDATargetLT Carc studies on label? Muromonab-CD3 1986T cell CD3 Receptor no Abcixumab1994 inhibition of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa no Daclizumab 1997IL-2Rα receptor (CD25)no Rituximab 1997 CD20 no Basiliximab 1998IL-2Rα receptor (CD25)no Infliximab 1998inhibition of TNF-α signalingno Palivizumab 1998an epitope of the RSV F proteinno Trastuzumab 1998 ErbB2 no Gemtuzumab 2000 CD33 no Alemtuzumab 2001 CD52 no Adalimumab 2002 inhibition of TNF-α signaling no Efalizumab 2002 CD11a no Ibritumomab 2002 CD20 no Tositumomab 2003 CD20 no Bevacizumab 2004 VEGF no Cetuximab 2004 epidermal growth factor receptor no Omalizumab 2004 immunoglobulin E (IgE) no Natalizumab 2006 alpha-4 (α4) integrin, xenograft models of a4+ cell lines: no drug related impact Panitumumab 2006epidermal growth factor receptorno Ranibizumab 2006 VEGF-A no Eculizumab 2007 Complement system protein C5 no Certolizumab pegol2008 inhibition of TNF-α signaling no Canakinumab 2009 IL-1β no Golimumab 2009 TNF-alpha inihibitor no Ustekinumab 2009 anti-IL12/IL23 Decreased host defense to tumors with surrogate; knockout mice susceptible to tumors [Data not from Sponsor-run trials] Ofatumumab 2009 CD20 7 month cyno tumorigenicity data included in label - no drug- related effects noted Denosumab 2010 RANK Ligand inhibitorno Tocilizumab (Atlizumab ) 2010 Anti- IL-6Rno Belimumab 2011 inihibition of B- cell activating factorno Brentuximab vedotin 2011 CD30no Ipilimumab ( MDX- 101 ) 2011 blocks CTLA-4no Two Sponsors conducted trials that impacted label One label impacted by published literature reports (ustekinumab)
©2012, Genentech Label Claims for Non-MAb Therapeutics Label Claim 2 yr studies in one or two speciesglargine (insulin analog), ocreotide (somatostatin analog), teriparatide (parathyroid hormone analog), IGF-1, gonadotropin releasing hormone, exenatide, liraglutide (incretin mimetic), pulmozyme (rhDNAse), abatacept Two year carc studies have not been performed… But tumors ID’ed in chronic tox studies aspart, glusine, and lispro (insulin analogs), calcitonin, pamlinitide (amylin hormone analog), Hypothical risk stated in labelasparaginase (alkylating agent) Two year carc studies in animals have not been performed…. humulin, novolin, lente, ultralente, Exubera, detemir, genotropin, humantrope, norditropin, norIVitropin, nutropin, omnitrope, protropin, siazen, serostim, valtropin, iplex, bioclate, helixate, kogenate, recombinate, reFacto, BeneFIX, ceprotin, aldurazyme, elaprase, naglazyme, fabrazyme, aralast, prolastin, lactaid, arco-lase, cotazym, creon, donnazyme, pancrease, viokase, zymase, adagen octagam, albumarc, albumin, albuminar, albuRx, albutein, flexbumin, buminate, plasbumin, neupogen, neulasta, leukine, neumega, Gonal-F, Follistim, ovidrel, luveris, infergen, roferon-A, Pegasys, Intron A, Peg-Intron, Alferon N, Avonex, rebif, betaseron, actimmune, proleukin, activase, retavase, TNKase, abbokinase, NovoSeven, Xigris, kepivance, regranex, granulex, natrecor, botox, myoblock collagenase, xiaflex, santyl, amphadase, hydase, vitrase, hylenex, oncaspar, elitek, refludan, angiomax, streptase, eminase, antril, kinaret, thioglobulin, fuzeon, somavert, crofab, digifab, ontak,
©2012, Genentech New ICH S6 Revision (ICH S6 R1, June 2011) To better inform risk, a new paradigm has been implemented by ICH When an assessment is warranted (i.e., chronic dosing, appropriate patient population, etc.) a weight of evidence approach is now advocated More emphasis on post-marketing surveillance
©2012, Genentech What Can this Include? Assessment of risk based on published literature and internal data Clinical –Market surveillance –Human epidemiology –Genetic diseases –Polymorphisms –Class effects Mechanistic data Is there impact on pathways known to be associated with malignancy risk Immunosuppression, chronic inflammation Downstream signaling through pathways associated with risk Transgenic models KO models Animal disease models Xenograft models In vitro data Chronic tox data Alternative data (lifetime phenotyping, labeling for proliferation)
©2012, Genentech Recommendations per ICH S6 R1, 2011 Outcome of Weight Based Assessment Cause for concern Hazard best addressed by product labeling and risk management practices Sponsor can propose additional studies to mitigate concern Risk considered low Additional rodent bioassays not warranted Risk unclear Consider studies as discussed in ICH S6, 1997)
©2012, Genentech Example: PCSK9 Inhibitor Class FDA has provided guidance to all sponsors that are targeting PCSK9 (LDL-c lowering therapies) Recommends a “Thorough Carcinogenicity Assessment” as described in ICH S6 (R1) –Requests that it is submitted early in development program (e.g., EOP2) – Includes formal evaluation of immunosuppressive potential (recommends 12 week study in cynos in combo w/ statin) –Specific interest in NK cell activity, CD8+ T cell cytolytic activity –Includes evaluation of impact on bile acid synthesis –“…evidence of immunosuppression and/or a sustained increase in bile acid secretion and/or intestinal bile acid load would be disclosed in the label as potential cancer risks”
©2012, Genentech Example: Studies to Mitigate Cause for Concern GLP-1 analogs and C cell tumors Rodent bioassays identified increases in C-cell tumors Follow-up in vitro studies evaluated GLP-1 expression in rodent, monkey and human C cells GLP-1 expression was much lower in humans, monkeys relative to rodents GLP-1 agonists stimulated measurable C-cell calcitonin release in rodents but not human or monkey cells Calcitonin levels evaluated in 5000 patients treated for up to two years with no evidence of increase Longitudinal studies have not identified causal association between GLP-1 analogs and C cell pathology However, FDA AERS database supports a potential risk of thyroid cancer with exenatide Current label (liraglutide): In mice … a dose-related increase in benign thyroid C-cell adenomas was seen… In rats … a treatment-related increase in benign thyroid C-cell adenomas was seen… Human relevance of thyroid C-cell tumors in mice and rats is unknown and could not be determined by clinical studies or nonclinical studies
©2012, Genentech Example: Class Effect Labeling 13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility A carcinogenicity study was not conducted with belatacept. However, a murine carcinogenicity study was conducted with abatacept (a more active analog in rodents) to determine the carcinogenic potential of CD28 blockade. Weekly subcutaneous injections of 20, 65, or 200 mg per kg of abatacept were associated with increases in the incidence of malignant lymphomas (all doses) and mammary gland tumors….
©2012, Genentech Utility of General Tox Study Results Predictivity of 6- or 12 month general tox studies for 2 yr bioassay (rats) –Histology evaluation (+ = increase in hyperplasia, hypertrophy, and atypical cellular foci (e.g., multinucleated cells, dysplasia, etc.) –2 yr rat bioassay (+ = increase in significant increase in tumors) –80 pharmacuticals evaluated (all FDA approved, sufficient rat data available for eval) –30 rat carcinogens, 50 noncarcinogens Positive predictivity: 63% Negative predictivity: 88% False negatives: 6% Chronic Tox (rat) 2 yr Bioassay +- +255 -1535 Reddy, deGeorge, et al., 2010. Vet. Path. 47(4) 614-629
©2012, Genentech Where is carcinogenic risk communicated currently in label? Boxed warning Section 5: Warnings and Precautions –“Immunosuppression” or “Malignancies” Section 6: Adverse Events –“Malignancies” Section13: Nonclinical Toxicology 13.1 …carcinogenesis “…must state whether long term studies in animals have been performed to evaluate the carcinogenic potential and, if so, the species and results” “…any precautionary statement on these topics must include practical, relevant advice to the prescriber on the significance of these animal findings. Human data suggesting that the drug may be carcinogenic … as described in the ‘Warning and Precautions’ section, must not be included in this subsection of the labeling.” Section17: Patient Counseling Information Source: Dan Mellon, FDA SOT 2012 Presentation.
©2012, Genentech Posited Strategy for Labeling Revisions (Proposed for SOT Discussion Only: Not Formal FDA Position)
Bottom Line: Changes in risk communication in not only product labels but informed consent documents, investigator brochures, etc. are anticipated but regulatory agencies have yet to address what these changes will look like
©2012, Genentech Summary Historically, classical lifetime rodent bioassays have had limited utility for malignancy risk assessment for biologics and have had little impact on informing product labels ICH has implemented new paradigm: Weight based assessment that incorporates clinical, preclinical and mechanistic data It remains to be seen how these risk assessments will be communicated in product labels
©2012, Genentech Page 28 © 2009, Genentech / Proprietary information – Please do not copy, distribute or use without prior written consent. Thank You Slide Credits: Dan Mellon(FDA) Heather Taylor (Genentech)
Food and Drug Administration The Future of Chemical Toxicity Testing in the U.S. Toxicity Testing in the 21 st Century June 21, 2010 David Jacobson-Kram,
A Critical Analysis of the Clinical Use of Incretin-Based Therapies The benefits by far outweigh the potential risks Featured Article: Diabetes Care Volume.
Pediatric Subcommittee of the AIDAC October 29-30, Topical Immunosuppressants (Calcineurin Inhibitors) - Animal Toxicology October 30, 2003 Barbara.
Nonclinical Perspective on Initiating Phase 1 Studies for Biological Oncology Products – Case Studies Anne M. Pilaro, Ph.D. DBOP/OODP/CDER Oncology Drugs.
1 Assessing Cancer Risk & Assuring Safe Use of Topical Immunosuppressants: Recent History Susan K. Cummins, MD, MPH Medical Team Leader OCTAP and OPT.
Safety and Extrapolation Steven Hirschfeld, MD PhD Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapy Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research FDA.
June 16-19, USEPA Cancer Guidelines: Mode of Carcinogenic Action 1 ICABR – Impacts of the Bioeconomy on Agricultural Sustainability, the Environment.
New Developments in Cancer Treatment Dulcinea Quintana, MD.
1 Safety Pharmacology for Oncology Pharmaceuticals at CDER John K. Leighton Associate Director for Pharmacology CDER/OND/OODP.
MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES As therapeutics As diagnostics As targeting agents.
Evaluation of a potential mutagenic MOA based on analysis of the weight of evidence and using the modified Hill criteria Martha M. Moore, Ph.D. Director,
Neonatal/Juvenile Animal Safety Studies Kenneth L. Hastings, Dr.P.H., D.A.B.T. Office of New Drugs, CDER.
1 Topical Immunosuppressants (Calcineurin Inhibitors) - Animal Toxicology Pediatric Advisory Committee Meeting February 15, 2005 Barbara Hill, Ph.D. Division.
Journal Club 9/15/11 Sanaz Sakiani, MD 1 st Year Endocrine Fellow Combining Basal Insulin Analogs with Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Mimetics.
Re-Examination of the Design of Early Clinical Trials for Molecularly Targeted Drugs Richard Simon, D.Sc. National Cancer Institute linus.nci.nih.gov/brb.
Questions to Committee about Potential Cancer Risk with Use of Topical Immunosuppressants (Calcineurin Inhibitors) Question 1: Messages about Risk A. Based.
Interpreting Adverse Signals in Diabetes Drug Development Programs Featured Article: Clifford J. Bailey, Ph.D. Diabetes Care Volume 36: 1-9 July, 2013.
Carcinogen Classification Criteria Patricia Richter Ph.D., DABT Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee June 8, 2010.
1 SAFETY IMPLICATIONS FOR BIOTECH PRODUCTS Peter Feldschreiber & Leigh-Ann Mulcahy Four New Square.
Nonclinical Perspective on Initiating Phase 1 Studies for Small Molecular Weight Compounds John K. Leighton, PH.D., DABT Supervisory Pharmacologist Division.
Mechanisms of Acquired Resistance to Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (EGFR-TKI) in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Victor.
1 Christopher Loss, DVM Division of Therapeutic Drugs for Non-Food Animals Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation USFDA Center for Veterinary Medicine Effectiveness.
DIVISION OF REPRODUCTIVE AND UROLOGIC PRODUCTS Physician Labeling Rule Lisa Soule, M.D.
Welcome and Introduction Lee S. Simon, MD Division Director Analgesic, Anti-inflammatory and Ophthalmologic Drug Products ODEV/CDER.
Chemical Carcinogens – workplace risk assessment and health surveillance Tiina Santonen Paide.
Advanced Cancer Topics Journal Review 4/16/2009 AD.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH Working with FDA: Biological Products and Clinical Development IND Case Studies.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH Working with FDA: Biological Products and Clinical Development Critical Path.
Drug Candidate safety testing Animal Studies - relevant species - transgenic KO/KI mice - conditional KOs - agonists/antagonists - antibodies - antisense.
Food and Drug Administration Preclinical safety data for “first in human” (FIH) clinical trials in healthy volunteer subjects Oncology Drug Advisory Committee.
Investigational Drugs in the hospital. + What is Investigational Drug? Investigational or experimental drugs are new drugs that have not yet been approved.
© 2008 Society of Toxicology ? What Do Toxicologists Do? Most Toxicologists work to assess and understand how chemicals affect living systems Develop mechanistic.
Arthritis Advisory Committee March 4, 2003 Update on the Safety of TNF Blockers Li-ching Liang, M.D. FDA / CBER/ OTRR Arthritis Advisory Committee March.
Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor (PPAR) Agonists Preclinical and Clinical Cardiac Safety Considerations Jeri.
Cancers of the Digestive System November 19, 2007 NCDD Meeting Chair: John M. Carethers, MD Vice Chair: Robert Sandler, MD, MPH.
Applying New Science to Drug Safety Janet Woodcock, M.D. Acting Deputy Commissioner for Operations April 15, 2005.
Pharmacogenetics (PGx) of Irinotecan: Scientific and Clinical Impact of UGT Polymorphism: Background Clinical Pharmacology Subcommittee of ACPS November.
MGH Research in IPF: Identifying New Targets for Effective Drug Therapies Andrew M. Tager, M.D. Interstitial Lung Disease Program Pulmonary and Critical.
Developing medicines for the future and why it is challenging Angela Milne.
QSAR in CANCER ASSESSMENT PURPOSE and AGENDA Gilman Veith Duluth MN May 19-21, 2010.
2 n McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD Highlighting the Need for AOPs in Streamlining Hazard.
Transplantation MCB150 Beatty. Grafts A graft is a transfer of tissue. Autograft is a graft on same animal. Isograft is a tissue transfer between.
+ Drug Development and Review Process. + Objectives Learn the processes involved in drug discovery and development Define the phases involved in FDA drug.
Drug Research and Development (R&D) Karol Godwin DVM.
Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation Laura L. Hungerford, DVM, MPH, PhD Senior Advisor, Science and Policy, ONADE Professor, University of Maryland School.
USE OF EVIDENCE IN DECISION MODELS: An appraisal of health technology assessments in the UK Nicola Cooper Centre for Biostatistics & Genetic Epidemiology,
The ICH E5 Question and Answer Document Status and Content Robert T. O’Neill, Ph.D. Director, Office of Biostatistics, CDER, FDA Presented at the 4th Kitasato-Harvard.
Regulation of Consumer Tests in California AAAS Meeting June 1-2, 2009 Beatrice OKeefe Acting Chief, Laboratory Field Services California Department of.
Clinical Trials. Clinical Trial New Drug Development Timeline Source: FDA/Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.