Search

Method validation is a cornerstone on which biomarker development and utilization rest. However, given the abundance of biomarker candidates that are being identified and characterized, validation of these entities for the use in nonclinical studies can be complex. The objective of this continuing education course was to review current practices and challenges encountered during the validation of methods for the analysis of novel biomarkers. Additionally, the importance of biological validation and correlation with pathology end points for biomarker candidates was discussed. This article is a summary of the materials presented at the 36th Annual Symposium of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology for a continuing education course titled “Current Practices and Challenges in Method Validation.” The speakers were subject-matter experts in the validation of quantitative mass spectrometry, multiplex binding assays, biological biomarkers, and immunophenotyping and anatomic and clinical pathology considerations in biomarker qualification.

Gastric mucosal injury is frequently observed in nonclinical studies of nonhuman primates. Because microscopic evaluation of stomach is generally a terminal procedure, our objective was to determine whether serum pepsinogen I (PG I) could serve as a noninvasive biomarker for detection of gastric mucosal injury in monkey. Serum PG I was measured using a commercial human immunoassay in cynomolgus monkeys ( n = 166) prior to dosing and/or terminally in 11 studies of up to 1 month duration. Mean ( SD) PG I values (ug/L) for monkeys with ( n = 59) and without ( n = 100) gastric mucosal degeneration were 101 (215) and 28 (12.6), respectively. For monkeys with baseline and terminal PG I data, mean ( SD) fold change (ratio of terminal to baseline PG I) for monkeys with ( n = 57) and without ( n = 76) glandular degeneration were 4.1 (11.3) and 1 (0.28). Receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) data demonstrated moderate diagnostic accuracy for serum PG I for glandular degeneration, AUC ( SE) 0.789 (0.04), with improved diagnostic accuracy as a fold change of baseline, AUC ( SE) 0.816 (0.04), consistent with the large interindividual but low intraindividual variability of serum PG I values in control monkeys. These data demonstrate that serum PG I is a useful biomarker of drug-induced gastric mucosal injury in the cynomolgus monkey.

The continuing education course on integrating clinical and anatomical pathology data was designed to communicate the importance of using a weight of evidence approach to interpret safety findings in toxicology studies. This approach is necessary, as neither clinical nor anatomic pathology data can be relied upon in isolation to fully understand the relationship between study findings and the test article. Basic principles for correlating anatomic pathology and clinical pathology findings and for integrating these with other study end points were reviewed. To highlight these relationships, a series of case examples, presented jointly by a clinical pathologist and an anatomic pathologist, were used to illustrate the collaborative effort required between clinical and anatomical pathologists. In addition, the diagnostic utility of traditional liver biomarkers was discussed using results from a meta-analysis of rat hepatobiliary marker and histopathology data. This discussion also included examples of traditional and novel liver and renal biomarker data implementation in nonclinical toxicology studies to illustrate the relationship between discrete changes in biochemistry and tissue morphology.

The Society of Toxicologic Pathology formed a working group in collaboration with the American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology to provide recommendations for the appropriate inclusion of clinical pathology evaluation in recovery arms of nonclinical toxicity studies but not on when to perform recovery studies. Evaluation of the recovery of clinical pathology findings is not required routinely but provides useful information on risk assessment in nonclinical toxicity studies and is recommended when the ability of the organ to recover is uncertain. The study design generally requires inclusion of concurrent controls to separate procedure-related changes from test article–related changes, but return of clinical pathology values toward baseline may be sufficient in some cases. Evaluation of either a select or full panel of standard hematology, coagulation, and serum and urine chemistry biomarkers can be scientifically justified. It is also acceptable to redesignate dosing phase animals to the recovery phase or vice versa to optimize data interpretation. Assessment of delayed toxicity during the recovery phase is not required but may be appropriate in development programs with unique concerns. Evaluation of the recovery of clinical pathology data for vaccine development is required and, for efficacy markers, is recommended if it furthers pharmacologic understanding.

The development of novel safety or efficacy biomarkers has increasingly been used to improve safety monitoring and minimize attrition during drug development; however, for new biomarkers, the failure rate can equal or exceed that of new chemical entities. Drug-induced kidney injury is recognized to occur throughout the drug development process, with histopathology considered to be the gold standard for preclinical toxicologic screening. Renal biomarkers used clinically are primarily biomarkers of renal function and are considered insensitive for the detection of drug-induced kidney injury during first-in-man studies, particularly for compounds known to induce renal injury in preclinical species. Recent efforts by public–private partnerships have led to unprecedented success in the identification, development, and qualification of several new translatable biomarkers of kidney injury in the rat. To optimize the chance of success in current and future biomarker efforts in preclinical species and man, selection and development of biomarkers should emphasize biological considerations including marker variability and biology in both health and disease. The research to support the qualification of novel renal safety markers for routine use in the clinical setting is currently underway, and results from this work are greatly anticipated.

AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE 19850-5437 Wyeth Research, Chazy, NY 12921 GlaxoSmithKline, King of Prussia, PA 19406 DuPont Company, Haskell Lab for Environmental Sciences Toxicology and Industrial Medicine, Newark, DE 19714-0050 Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 Pfizer Global Research & Development, Groton, CT 06340 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2027 Independent Consultant, Kalamazoo, MI 49001

The following three articles represent the output of a combined effort initiated by the Scientific Regulatory Policy Committee of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology to provide a unified review of current scientific practices and relevant literature and provide suggestions regarding the recognition, interpretation, and risk assessment of hepatic drug metabolizing enzyme (DME) induction studies. The core objective was to provide a review that the scientific community including pathologists, regulatory scientists, toxicologists, investigative scientists, and others would find valuable for managing, designing, and interpreting toxicity studies supporting regulatory filings. Three working groups composed of scientists from industry, academia, and regulatory agencies were convened to review the available literature on important aspects of the interpretation and risk assessment of hepatic microsomal DME enzyme induction in three publications. The three reviews are as follows: “Effects of Hepatic Drug Metabolizing Enzyme Induction on Clinical Pathology Parameters in Animals and Man,” Toxicol Pathol “Hepatic Drug Metabolizing Enzyme Induction: Microscopic and Ultrastructural Appearance,” Toxicol Pathol “Hepatic Drug Metabolizing Enzyme Induction and Implications for Preclinical and Clinical Risk Assessment,” Toxicol Pathol The purpose of this introduction is not to summarize the articles but rather to frame the series and to provide a common mechanistic introduction.