The use of recovery animals in nonclinical safety assessment studies with monoclonal antibodies: further 3Rs opportunities remain
Helen Prior, Laura Andrews, Annick Cauvin, Hsiao-Tzu Chien, David O. Clarke, Kaushik Datta, Maggie Dempster, Noël Dybdal, Wendy Freebern, Lolke de Haan, Danuta J. Herzyk, Adam Hey, Thomas Kissner, Sven Kronenberg, Michael W. Leach, Donna Lee, Kirsty Reid, Katrin Schütte, Fiona Sewell, Kevin Trouba, Peter Ulrich, Leon van Aerts, Peter van Meer, Lucinda Weir
Abstract
Assessment of reversibility from nonclinical toxicity findings in animals with potential adverse clinical impact is required during pharmaceutical development, but there is flexibility around how and when this is performed and if recovery animals are necessary. For monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and in accordance with ICH S6(R1) if inclusion of recovery animals is warranted, this need only occur in one study. Data on study designs for first-in-human (FIH)-enabling and later-development toxicity studies were shared from a recent collaboration between the NC3Rs, EPAA, Netherlands Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) and 14 pharmaceutical companies. This enabled a review of practices on recovery animal use during mAb development and identification of opportunities to reduce research animal use. Recovery animals were included in 68% of FIH-enabling and 69% of later-development studies, often in multiple studies in the same program. Recovery groups were commonly in control plus one test article-dosed group or in all dose groups (45% of studies, each design). Based on the shared data review and conclusions, limiting inclusion of recovery to a single nonclinical toxicology study and species, study design optimisation and use of existing knowledge instead of additional recovery groups provide opportunities to further reduce animal use within mAb development programs.