Application of Genetically Altered Models as Replacement for the Lifetime Mouse Bioassay in Pharmaceutical Development

Abstract

The international pharmaceutical regulatory academic and industrial toxicology communities are collaborating to improve the efficiency and effectivenes s of cancer hazard identification based on dramatic improvements in our understanding of the cancer process. Guidelines emanating from the International Conference on Harmonization provide for use of in vivo alternatives. Standard practices utilizing lifetime rat and mouse studies are recognized as seriously flawed with over 80% false positive rates. Furthermore, tobacco, the most important human carcinogen commercialized by industry, is negative in these traditional lifetime studies. The lifetime mouse bioassay is generally recognized in pharmaceutical development as not adding value in safety assessment. An international consortium under the aegis of ILSI has recently completed an evaluation of alternative mouse cancer models. Transgenic models are less expensive, use fewer animals and take less time than traditional lifetime bioassays. These alternative models have now been sufficiently evaluated to be considered useful in the safety assessment plan for pharmaceuticals in development. Specifically for example, the rasH2 appears useful in detecting nongenotoxic as well as genotoxic rodent tumorigens with improved concordance with human response. The p53^+/- heterozygous mouse apparently identifies hormonal carcinogenic mechanisms, immunosuppressive carcinogens, and genotoxic carcinogens. The TG:AC predicts for rodent tumorigens applied topically. Recent experiences at FDA, CPMP, and MHW indicate that with good planning and agency interactions, regulatory acceptability can be anticipated.

References

Alden CL , Smith PF , Piper CE , Brej L. ( 1996). A critical appraisal of the value of the mouse cancer bioassay in safety assessment. Toxicol Pathol 24(16): 722—725.

Alden CL (2000). Safety assessment for non-genotoxi c rodent carcinogens: Curves, low-dose extrapolation, and mechanisms in carcinogenesis. Human Exper Toxicol 19: 557—560.

Contrera JF , Degeorge JJ (1998). In vivo transgenic bioassays and assessment of thecarcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals. Environ Health Perspect 106(S1): 71—80.

Monro A. (1996). Are lifespan rodent carcinogenicity studies defensible for pharmaceutical agents? Exp Toxicol Pathol 48: 155—166.

Tennant RW , Stasiewicz S. , Mennear J. , French JE , Spalding JW (1999). Genetically altered mouse models for identifying carcinogens. In: The Use of Short- and Medium-Term Tests for Carcinogens and Data on Genetic Effects in Carcinogenic Hazard Evaluation , McGregor DB , Rice JM , Venitt S (eds). IARC Scientific Publications No. 146, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon. pp 123—150.

ILSI/HESI Alternatives to Carcinogenicity Testing Project. Toxicol Pathol 29: Supplement, 2001.

Van Oosterhout JPJ , Van Der L aan JW , De Waal EJ , Olejniczak K. , Hilgenfeld M. , Schmidt Bass R. (1997). The utility of two rodent species in carcinogenic risk assessment of pharmaceutical s in Europe. Regulatory Toxicol Pharmacol 25: 6—17.