Preclinical safety evaluation of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Volumn 1, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 469-475

  Cavagnaro, Joy A ^a  

^a Access BIO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALBUMIN; ANTIBODY CONJUGATE; ANTIIDIOTYPIC ANTIBODY; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; BLOOD CLOTTING FACTOR; CHIMERIC ANTIBODY; COLONY STIMULATING FACTOR; CYTOKINE; DNA; ERYTHROPOIETIN; FIBRINOLYTIC AGENT; GROWTH FACTOR; GROWTH HORMONE; HORMONE DERIVATIVE; IMMUNOGLOBULIN FC FRAGMENT; INSULIN DERIVATIVE; INTERFERON; LIPOSOME; MACROGOL; MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY; PEPTIDE DERIVATIVE; PLASMID DNA; PROTEIN DERIVATIVE; RECOMBINANT DNA; RECOMBINANT PROTEIN; RNA; TUMOR VACCINE; BIOLOGICAL PRODUCT;

ANIMAL MODEL; ARTICLE; BIOASSAY; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DRUG ACTIVITY; DRUG CLASSIFICATION; DRUG MECHANISM; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG SCREENING; HUMAN; IMMUNE STATUS; IMMUNOGENICITY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; METHODOLOGY; NONHUMAN; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TOXICITY TESTING; ANIMAL; SAFETY; SPECIES DIFFERENCE;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS; BIOTECHNOLOGY; HUMANS; MODELS, ANIMAL; SAFETY; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0036593951     PISSN: 14741776     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrd822     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Zbinden, G. Biotechnology products intended for human use, toxicological targets and research strategies. Prog. Clin. Biol. Res. 235, 143-159 (1987).
2. Claude, J. R. Difficulties in conceiving and applying guidelines for the safety evaluation of biotechnologically produced drugs: some examples. Toxicol. Lett. 64-65, 349-355 (1992).
3. Cavagnaro, J. A. Science-based approach to preclinical safety evaluation of biotechnology products. Pharm. Eng. 12, 32-33 (1992).
4. Dayan, A. D. Safety evaluation of biological and biotechnology-derived medicines. Toxicology 105, 59-68 (1995).
5. Maki, E. Safety assessment of biotechnology-derived pharmaceutical products. General principles and the relevant cases. J. Toxicol. Sci. 21, 531-534 (1996).
6. Serabian, M. A. & Pilaro, A. M. Safety assessment of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals: ICH and beyond. Toxicol. Pathol. 27, 27-31 (1999).
7. Bass, R., Purves, J. & Amati, M. P. Safety of biotechnological products. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 86 (Suppl. 1), 27-96 (2000).
8. Cavagnaro, J. A. in Comprehensive Toxicology 2. Toxicity Testing & Evaluation (eds Williams, P. D. & Hottendorf G. H.) 291-298 (Elsevier Science, New York, 1996).
9. Griffiths, S. A. & Lumley, C. (eds) Proceedings of the CMR International Workshop on Safety Evaluation of Biotechnology-Derived Pharmaceuticals: Facilitating a Scientific Approach (CMR International, Surrey, UK, 1997).
10. Black, L. E. et al. Safety evaluation of immunomodulatory biopharmaceuticals: can we improve the predictive value of preclinical studies? Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 19 (Special issue), 1-265 (2000).
11. Sims, J. Assessment of biotechnology products for therapeutic use. Toxicol. Lett. 120, 59-66 (2001).
12. Federal Register 61, FR2733 (29 January 1996).
13. Guidance for industry on content and format of investigational new drug applications (INDs) for Phase I studies of drugs, including well-characterized, therapeutic, biotechnology-derived products. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [online] (cited 29 April 2002) (1995).
14. Guidance for industry Q&A content and format of INDs for Phase I studies of drugs, including well-characterized, therapeutic, biotechnology-derived products. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [online] (cited 29 April 2002) (2000).
15. Guidance for industry INDs for Phase II and III studies of drugs, including specified therapeutic biotechnology-derived products chemistry, manufacturing, and controls content and format. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [online] (cited 29 April 2002) (1999).
16. ICH guidance: Q6B specifications test procedures and acceptance criteria for biotechnological/biological products. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [online] (cited 29 April 2002) (1999).
17. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Review (CBER) product approval information. US Food and Drug Administration [online] (cited 29 April 2002) (2002).
18. Biotechnology industry statistics. Biotechnology Industry Organization [online] (cited 25 April 2002) www.bio.org/er/statistics.asp (2001).
19. Debouck, C. & Metcalf, B. The impact of genomics on drug discovery. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 40, 193-207 (2000).
20. Harris, S. & Ford, S. M. Transgenic gene knock-outs: functional genomics and therapeutic target selection. Pharmacogenomics 1, 433-443 (2000).
21. Nuwaysir, E. F., Bittner, M., Trent, J., Barrett, J. C. & Afshari C. A. Microarrays and toxicology: the advent of toxicogenomics. Mol. Carcinog. 24, 153-159 (1999).
22. Lovett, R. A. Toxicogenomics. Toxicologists brace for the genomics revolution. Science 289, 536-537 (2000).
23. Burchiel, S. W. et al. Analysis of genetic and epigenetic mechanisms of toxicity: potential role of toxicogenomics and proteomics in toxicology. Toxicol Sci. 59, 193-195 (2001).
24. Cunningham, M. J. Genomics and proteomics: the new millennium of drug discovery and development. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 44, 291-300 (2000).
25. Fielden, M. R. & Zacharewski, T. R. Challenges and limitations of gene expression profiling in mechanistic and predictive toxicology. Toxicol. Sci. 60, 6-10 (2001).
26. Nicholson, J. K., Lindon, J. C. & Holmes, E. 'Metabonomics': understanding the metabolic responses of living systems to pathophysiological stimuli via multivariate statistical analysis of biological NMR spectroscopic data. Xenobiotica 11, 1181-1189 (1999).
27. Searls, D. B. Using bioinformatics in gene and drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 5, 135-143 (2000).
28. Maggio, E. T. & Ramnarayan, K. Recent developments in computational proteomics. Drug Discov. Today 6, 996-1004 (2001).
29. Loo, J. A., DeJohn, D, E., Du, P., Stevenson, T. I. & Ogorzalek Loo, R. R. Application of mass spectrometry for target identification and characterization. Med. Res. Rev. 19, 307-319 (1999).
30. Roberts, S. A. High-throughput screening approaches for investigating drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics. Xenobiotica 31, 557-589 (2001).
31. MacGregor, J. T. et al. New molecular endpoints and methods for routing toxicity testing. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 26, 156-173 (1995).
32. Kensler, T. W., Davidson, N. E., Groopman, J. D. & Munoz, A. Biomarkers and surrogacy: relevance to chemoprevention. IARC Sci. Publ. 154, 27-47 (2001).
33. ICH guidance: S6 safety evaluation of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [online] (cited 29 April 2002) (1997).
34. Coscarella, A. et al. Pharmacokinetic and immunogenic behavior of three recombinant human GM-CSF-EPO hybrid proteins in cynomolgus monkeys. Mol. Biotechnol. 10, 115-122 (1998).
35. Braun, A., Kwee, L., Labow, M. A. & Alsenz, J. Protein aggregates seem to play a key role among the parameters influencing the antigenicity of interferon-α (IFN-α) in normal and transgenic mice. Pharm. Res. 14, 1472-1478 (1997).
36. Wang, D. S. et al. Effect of dosing schedule on pharmacokinetics of α-interferon and anti-α interferon neutralizing antibody in mice. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 45, 176-180 (2001).
37. Von Wussow, P. et al. Immunogenicity of different types of interferons in the treatment of hairy-cell leukemias. N. Engl. J. Med. 319, 1226-1227 (1988).
38. Miller, L. L. et al. Abrogation of the hematological and biological activities of the interleukin 3/granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor fusion protein PIXY321 by neutralizing anti-PIXY321 antibodies in cancer patients receiving high-dose carboplatin. Blood 93, 3250-3258 (1999).
39. Gunn, H. Immunogenicity of recombinant human interleukin-3. Clin. Immunol. Immunopathol. 83, 1-4 (1997).
40. Finkelman, F. D. et al. Anti-cytokine antibodies as carrier proteins. Prolongation of in vivo effects of exogenous cytokines by injection of cytokine-anti-cytokine antibody complexes. J. Immunol. 151, 1235-1244 (1993).
41. May, L. T. et al. Antibodies chaperone circulating IL-6. Paradoxical effects of anti-IL-6 'neutralizing' antibodies in vivo. J. Immunol. 151, 3225-3236 (1993).
42. Jones, A. T. & Ziltener, H. J. Enhancement of the biologic effects of interleukin-3 in vivo by anti-interleukin-3 antibodies. Blood 82, 1133-1141 (1993).
43. Brown, R. A. et al. Enhanced firbroblast conctraction of 3D collagen lattices and integrin expression by TGF-β1 and -β3: mechanoregulatory growth factors? Exp. Cell Res. 274, 310-322 (2002).
44. Green, J. D. & Black, L. E. Status of preclinical safety assessment of immunomodulatory biopharmaceuticals. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 19, 208-212 (2000).
45. Pullai, O., Dhanikaul, A. B. & Panchagnula, R. Drug delivery: an odyssey of 100 years. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 5, 439-446 (2001).
46. Watts, T. L. & Fasano, A. Modulation of intestinal permeability: a novel and innovative approach for the oral delivery of drugs, macromolecules and antigens. Biotechnol. Genet. Eng. Rev. 17, 433-453 (2001).
47. FDA guidance concerning demonstration of comparability of human biological products, including therapeutic biotechnology-derived products. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [online] (cited 29 April 2002) (1996).
48. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Note for guidance on comparability of medicinal products containing biotechnology-derived products as drug substance. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products [online] (cited 29 Apr 02) (2001).
49. Mordenti, J., Cavagnaro, J. A. & Green, J. D. Design of biological equivalence programs for therapeutic biotechnology products in clinical development: a perspective. Pharm. Res. 13, 1427-1437 (1996).
50. Schaffner, G., Haase, M. & Gioss, S. Criteria for investigation of the product equivalence of monoclonal antibodies for therapeutic and in vivo diagnostic use in case of introduction of changes in the manufacturing process. Biologicals 23, 253-259 (1995).
51. Polastro, E. T. & Little, A. D. The future of biogenerics. Contract Pharma [online] (cited 29 April 2002) (2001).
52. Schellekens, H. & Ryff, J.-C. Biogenerics: the off-patent biotech products. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 23, 119-121 (2002).
53. Cavagnaro, J. Preclinical development strategies for new medicines: are the correct questions being asked? Reg. Affairs J. 12, 3-4 (2000).
54. Schwetz, B. A. Toxicology at the Food and Drug Administration: new century, new challenges. Int. J. Toxicol. 20, 3-8 (2001).
55. Smith, L. L. Key challenges for toxicologists in the 21st century. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 22, 281-285 (2001).
56. ICH guidance: M3 non-clinical safety studies for the conduct of human clinical trials for pharmaceuticals. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [online] (cited 29 April 2002) (2002).
57. Cavagnaro, J. & Spindler, P. Methods for predicting tumorigenicity of immunomodulatory biopharmaceuticals. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 19, 213-215 (2000).
58. Calabrese, E. J. Suitability of animal models for predictive toxicology: theoretical and practical considerations. Drug Metab. Rev. 15, 505-523 (1984).
59. Russel, R. W. Essential role of animal models in understanding human toxicities. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 15, 7-11 (1991).
60. Miller, G. S. New concepts of preparation and use of animal models in toxicology. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 7, 414-416 (1987).
61. Dayan, A. Forward-safety evaluation of immunomodulatory biopharmaceuticals: can we improve the predictive value of preclinical studies? Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 19, 206-207 (2000).
62. Sharma, A. et al. Comparative pharmacodynamics of keliximab and clenoliximab in transgenic mice bearing human CD4. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 293, 33-41 (2000).
63. Nishijima, I. et al. A human GM-CSF receptor expressed in transgenic mice stimulates proliferation and differentiation of hemopoietic progenitors to all lineages in response to human GM-CSF. Mol. Biol. Cell 6, 497-508 (1995).
64. Terrell, T. G. & Green, J. D. Comparative pathology of recombinant murine interferon-γ in mice and recombinant human interferon-γ in cynomolgus monkeys. Int. Rev. Exp. Pathol. 34, 73-101 (1993).
65. Anderson, T. D. & Hayes, T. J. Toxicity of human recombinant interleukin-2 in rats. Pathologic changes are characterized by marked lymphocytic and eosinophilic proliferation and multisystem involvement. Lab. Invest. 60, 331-346 (1989).
66. Anderson, T. D., Areco, R. & Hayes, T. J. Comparable toxicology and pathology associated with administration of recombinant HuIL-1α to animals. Int. Rev. Exp. Pathol. 34, 9-36 (1993).