An assessment of potential developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) is generally required to support clinical trials and marketing of pharmaceuticals. Although typically performed in rodents and rabbits, nonhuman primates (NHPs) are often used when they are the only pharmacologically relevant species. Regulatory guidances allow for weight of evidence (WoE) risk assessment for DART such that mature NHPs may not be needed to confirm expected or low risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. As such, there are numerous examples of WoE strategies to inform risk of adverse pregnancy outcome, but fewer to assess risk to male and/or female fertility, although emerging data indicate mature NHPs have limited impact on fertility risk assessment in product labels. Mature NHP data are most impactful to fill safety gaps when there are no relevant data from other species, limited information to establish WoE, and/or limited human data is available to characterize risk. In this review, we propose a detailed decision tree and examples to inform risk of adverse pregnancy outcome or male/female fertility impact by emphasizing and prioritizing WoE supplemented by experimental data where necessary, including use of NHPs as a last resort. Additional refinements to NHP use are also summarized.

Urinalysis is routinely performed in toxicology studies, for both regulatory and non-regulatory purposes, in species such as rats, dogs, minipigs and non-human primates. Sample collection usually requires animals to be individually housed in a metabolism cage and/or catheterised, raising animal welfare considerations. It is not clear if urinalysis results are being used as part of safety evaluation and how often they play a role in decision-making, as the quality of the data can be highly variable, and there are other assessments (e.g. kidney histopathology) that may provide more detailed and better-qualified information. This article summarises presentations and case studies from a workshop co-organised by the UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) and the Association for Comparative Clinical Pathology (ACCP) in October 2023, discussing the value of urinalysis within pharmaceutical and agrochemical product development and opportunities for refinement. These include performing urinalysis on a case-by-case basis rather than in every repeat-dose toxicology study, using a single species when appropriate and minimising the duration of urine collection periods and single housing. A first step for this 3Rs opportunity would be to collect evidence on the value of urinalysis assessment in toxicology studies and its impact on decision-making, through a data-sharing project highlighting case studies where urinalysis could have been avoided without changing the study outcome.

Adoption of a blood microsampling technique can reduce or avoid the use of satellite animals (rodents) for toxicokinetics or other purposes in discovery and toxicology studies and provides refinements applicable for both rodents and larger animals. Microsampling can increase the scientific value of data obtained from rodent studies during drug and (agro)chemical development, enabling multiple endpoints to be investigated and compared in an individual animal in the same way as non-rodents. A cross-sector survey was developed to understand the current use of microsampling in toxicology studies, with the aim of identifying the specific studies in which microsampling was employed and the barriers to wider uptake. A high proportion of the survey responses indicated that microsampling was used, however, the extent varied widely. Some organisations use the technique only in non-GLP studies. Microsampling was used most for pharmacokinetics or toxicokinetics, commonly within small molecule and agrochemical toxicity studies, but less frequently within large molecule, cell/gene therapies or industrial chemical studies. A wide variety of barriers to wider use of microsampling were provided, typically around reticence to change from using larger samples, or not wishing to validate another bioanalytical method given the resources and challenges associated with the validation of a new technology. Despite these barriers, some organisations have adopted microsampling routinely across many/all rodent toxicity studies and there are opportunities to further reduce and refine animal use across all sectors by wider adoption of microsampling.

Chronic repeated-dose toxicity studies are required to support long-term dosing in late-stage clinical trials, providing data to adequately characterize adverse effects of potential concern for human safety. Different regulatory guidances for the design and duration of chronic toxicity studies are available, with flexibility in approaches often adopted for specific drug modalities. These guidances may provide opportunities to reduce time, cost, compound requirement and animal use within drug development programs if applied more broadly and considered outside their current scopes of use. This article summarizes presentations from a workshop at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the American College of Toxicology (ACT) in November 2022, discussing different approaches for chronic toxicity studies. A recent industry collaboration between the Netherlands Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) and UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) illustrated current practices and the value of chronic toxicity studies for monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and evaluated a weight of evidence (WOE) model where a 3-month study rather than a 6-month study might be adequate. Other topics included potential opportunities for single-species chronic toxicity studies for small molecules, peptides and oligonucleotides and whether a 6-month duration non-rodent study can be used more routinely than a 9-month study (similar to ICH S6(R1) for biological products). Also addressed were opportunities to optimize recovery animal use if warranted and whether restriction to one study only (if at all) can be applied more widely within and outside ICH S6(R1).

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.

To support registration of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for chronic indications, 6-month toxicity studies have historically been conducted. Experience with mAb development has shown a relatively benign and well-understood safety profile for this class, with most toxicity findings anticipated based on pharmacology. We evaluated whether a 6-month toxicity study is necessary to assess the long-term safety of mAbs. Data on First-in-Human (FIH)-enabling and chronic toxicity studies were shared for 142 mAbs submitted by 11 companies. Opportunities to further optimize study designs to reduce animal usage were identified. For 71% of mAbs, no toxicities or no new toxicities were noted in chronic studies compared to FIH-enabling study findings. New toxicities of potential concern for human safety or that changed trial design were identified in 13.5% of cases, with 7% being considered critical and 2% leading to program termination. An iterative, weight-of-evidence model which considers factors that influence the overall risk for a mAb to cause toxicity was developed. This model enables an evidence-based justification, suggesting when 3-month toxicity studies are likely sufficient to support late-stage clinical development and registration for some mAbs.

ICH S6 (R1) states that safety evaluation of biotherapeutics should normally include 2 relevant species when available (i.e., a rodent and non-rodent species in which the test material is pharmacologically active), at least for short-term toxicology studies (generally supporting Phase I trials). For subsequent long-term toxicology studies (e.g., chronic studies up to 6 months dosing duration), there are options to reduce to only one species when justified, including when the mechanism of action of the biologic is well-understood or the toxicity findings in the short-term studies are "similar" in both the rodent and non-rodent species. Across the industry, around 25 to 33% of biologics assess multiple species within short-term toxicity studies but it is often unclear how different companies and regulators are applying the ICH S6 (R1) principles of "similar toxicity profiles" to progress with either 1 or 2 species in the long-term studies, in particular whether the absence of toxicities is considered within this definition. Sponsors may potentially continue to use 2 species to avoid regulatory risk and potential delays in development timelines, representing missed opportunities for reducing animal use, particularly of non-human primates, during drug development. This article summarizes presentations from a symposium at the 41(st) Annual meeting of the American College of Toxicology (ACT) in November 2020, in which industry case studies and regulatory perspectives addressed considerations and decisions for using 1 or 2 species for long-term toxicity studies, highlighting any common themes or experience that could be applicable for use in future decision-making.

Different government agencies operating in the European Union regulate different types of chemical products but all require testing for carcinogenicity to support applications for product marketing and commercialisation. A conference was held in Brussels in 2013 where representatives of the pharmaceutical, animal health, chemical and plant protection industries, together with representatives of regulatory agencies, universities and other stakeholders, met under the auspices of The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) to discuss the varying requirements for carcinogenicity testing, and how these studies might be refined to improve hazard evaluation and risk assessment while implementing principles of the 3Rs (replacement, refinement and reduction in animal studies). While there are some similarities, the regulatory approaches in pharmaceutical, animal health, chemical and plant protection sectors have varying degrees of flexibility in requirements for carcinogenicity testing, to an extent reflecting concerns over the magnitude and duration of human exposure, either directly as in therapeutic exposure to pharmaceuticals, or indirectly through the ingestion of residues of veterinary drugs or plant protection chemicals. The article discusses these differences and other considerations for modified carcinogenicity testing paradigms on the basis of scientific and 3Rs approaches.

In drug development, nonclinical safety assessment is pivotal for human risk assessment and support of clinical development. Selecting the relevant/appropriate animal species for toxicity testing increases the likelihood of detecting potential effects in humans, and although recent regulatory guidelines state the need to justify or dis-qualify animal species for toxicity testing, individual companies have developed decision-processes most appropriate for their molecules, experience and 3Rs policies. These generally revolve around similarity of metabolic profiles between toxicology species/humans and relevant pharmacological activity in at least one species for New Chemical Entities (NCEs), whilst for large molecules (biologics) the key aspect is similarity/presence of the intended human target epitope. To explore current industry practice, a questionnaire was developed to capture relevant information around process, documentation and tools/factors used for species selection. Collated results from 14 companies (Contract Research Organisations and pharmaceutical companies) are presented, along with some case-examples or over-riding principles from individual companies. As the process and justification of species selection is expected to be a topic for continued emphasis, this information could be adapted towards a harmonized approach or best practice for industry consideration.

The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) is working with industry to promote social housing during cardiovascular telemetry recordings within non-rodent safety pharmacology and toxicology studies. Following surveys to capture current practice, benefits and concerns to adoption of this refinement (2015 and 2017), a 2018 European workshop shared experience and practical advice to address common barriers such as sensitivity of different study designs and the potential for cross-contamination with test article in socially-housed conditions. A similar number of responses were received to each survey (38 in 2015; 36 in 2017), from biopharmaceutical companies and CROs that perform or outsource non-rodent telemetry studies. Each dataset had different respondents, but 19 facilities provided answers regarding dogs and non-human primates (NHPs) for both surveys. More respondents socially-housed their non-rodents in 2017; increases were apparent for both the non-recording/acclimatisation periods and the telemetry recording periods compared with 2015. However, on recording days only 60, 75 and 89% of respondents from Europe and 25, 14 and 36% of respondents from outside of Europe socially-housed their dogs, minipigs or NHPs respectively. The potential for contamination with test article between animals housed together is considered by some facilities as justification for individual housing during recordings, however, survey data did not support this rationale. Nine organisations provided data on prevalence of vomiting during telemetry studies, showing the risk was moderate for dogs and very low for minipig and NHP. Further, if vomiting did occur, this could be managed effectively with little impact on study outcomes or validity and with careful dose selection, the risk is further diminished. A recent increase in published papers and posters on this topic would suggest many more companies are planning, or have recently implemented, this refinement. The continued willingness of the community to share practical experience and publish validation data may lead to this approach becoming the 'new standard' across the industry in the near future, representing a core component of 'best-practice' recommendations to increase animal welfare whilst maintaining quality data provision for investigational and regulatory purposes.

During the development of potential new medicines or agrochemicals, an assessment of the safety profile to humans and environmental species is conducted using a range of different in silico and in vitro techniques in conjunction with metabolism and toxicity studies using animals. The required studies are outlined within international regulatory guidelines which acknowledge and support the application of the 3Rs to reduce the number of animals used or to refine the procedures performed when these studies are deemed to be necessary. The continued development of new technologies and adoption of best-practice approaches to laboratory animal housing and study procedures has generated a series of refinements that can be incorporated into animal studies throughout the package. These refinements benefit the welfare of fish, mice, rats, rabbits, dogs, minipigs, and non-human primates (NHPs) whilst maintaining or improving data quality within general toxicology, metabolism, and other studies and can also bring efficiencies to processes that benefit study costs and timings. Examples are shared which cover the following topics: social housing of dogs and NHPs, surgical refinements in the rat bile duct cannulation model for collection of data for metabolism studies, whether fasting is really required prior to clinical pathology sampling, and the use of microsampling for toxicokinetics.

Safety pharmacology is an essential part of drug development aiming to identify, evaluate and investigate undesirable pharmacodynamic properties of a drug primarily prior to clinical trials. In particular, cardiovascular adverse drug reactions (ADR) have halted many drug development programs. Safety pharmacology has successfully implemented a screening strategy to detect cardiovascular liabilities, but there is room for further refinement. In this setting, we present the INSPIRE project, a European Training Network in safety pharmacology for Early Stage Researchers (ESRs), funded by the European Commission's H2020-MSCA-ITN programme. INSPIRE has recruited 15 ESR fellows that will conduct an individual PhD-research project for a period of 36 months. INSPIRE aims to be complementary to ongoing research initiatives. With this as a goal, an inventory of collaborative research initiatives in safety pharmacology was created and the ESR projects have been designed to be complementary to this roadmap. Overall, INSPIRE aims to improve cardiovascular safety evaluation, either by investigating technological innovations or by adding mechanistic insight in emerging safety concerns, as observed in the field of cardio-oncology. Finally, in addition to its hands-on research pillar, INSPIRE will organize a number of summer schools and workshops that will be open to the wider community as well. In summary, INSPIRE aims to foster both research and training in safety pharmacology and hopes to inspire the future generation of safety scientists.

An international expert working group representing 37 organisations (pharmaceutical/biotechnology companies, contract research organisations, academic institutions and regulatory bodies) collaborated in a data sharing exercise to evaluate the utility of two species within regulatory general toxicology studies. Anonymised data on 172 drug candidates (92 small molecules, 46 monoclonal antibodies, 15 recombinant proteins, 13 synthetic peptides and 6 antibody-drug conjugates) were submitted by 18 organisations. The use of one or two species across molecule types, the frequency for reduction to a single species within the package of general toxicology studies, and a comparison of target organ toxicities identified in each species in both short and longer-term studies were determined. Reduction to a single species for longer-term toxicity studies, as used for the development of biologicals (ICHS6(R1) guideline) was only applied for 8/133 drug candidates, but might have been possible for more, regardless of drug modality, as similar target organ toxicity profiles were identified in the short-term studies. However, definition and harmonisation around the criteria for similarity of toxicity profiles is needed to enable wider consideration of these principles. Analysis of a more robust dataset would be required to provide clear, evidence-based recommendations for expansion of these principles to small molecules or other modalities where two species toxicity testing is currently recommended.

The framework for developmental toxicity testing has remained largely unchanged for over 50 years and although it remains invaluable in assessing potential risks in pregnancy, knowledge gaps exist, and some outcomes do not necessarily correlate with clinical experience. Advances in omics, in silico approaches and alternative assays are providing opportunities to enhance our understanding of embryo-fetal development and the prediction of potential risks associated with the use of medicines in pregnancy. A workshop organised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), "Predicting the Safety of Medicines in Pregnancy - a New Era?", was attended by delegates representing regulatory authorities, academia, industry, patients, funding bodies and software developers to consider how to improve the quality of and access to nonclinical developmental toxicity data and how to use this data to better predict the safety of medicines in human pregnancy. The workshop delegates concluded that based on comparative data to date alternative methodologies are currently no more predictive than conventional methods and not qualified for use in regulatory submissions. To advance the development and qualification of alternative methodologies, there is a requirement for better coordinated multidisciplinary cross-sector interactions coupled with data sharing. Furthermore, a better understanding of human developmental biology and the incorporation of this knowledge into the development of alternative methodologies is essential to enhance the prediction of adverse outcomes for human development. The output of the workshop was a series of recommendations aimed at supporting multidisciplinary efforts to develop and validate these alternative methodologies.

Toxicity studies using mammalian species are generally required to provide safety data to support clinical development and licencing registration for potential new pharmaceuticals. International regulatory guidelines outline recommendations for the order (rodent and/or non-rodent) and number of species, retaining flexibility for development of a diverse range of drug modalities in a manner relevant for each specific new medicine. Selection of the appropriate toxicology species involves consideration of scientific, ethical and practical factors, with individual companies likely having different perspectives and preferences regarding weighting of various aspects dependent upon molecule characteristics and previous experience of specific targets or molecule classes. This article summarizes presentations from a symposium at the 2019 Annual Congress of the British Toxicology Society on the topic of species selection for pharmaceutical toxicity studies. This symposium included an overview of results from a National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) and Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) international collaboration that reviewed the use of one or two species in regulatory toxicology studies and justification for the species selected within each programme. Perspectives from two pharmaceutical companies described their processes for species selection for evaluation of biologics, and justification for selection of the minipig as a toxicological species for small molecules. This article summarizes discussions on the scientific justification and other considerations taken into account to ensure the most appropriate animal species are used for toxicity studies to meet regulatory requirements and to provide the most value for informing project decisions.

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries continually review the requirements for, and relevance of, safety assessment strategies. Various industry consortia are currently discussing and reviewing data on a range of topics with respect to regulatory toxicology programs. These consortia are charged with critical evaluation of data and the identification of opportunities to promote best practice and to introduce improved approaches to safety assessment. Such improvements may include enhanced predictivity, more efficient ways of working, and opportunities for promoting and implementing the 3Rs (replacement, refinement, or reduction). As each consortium is considering a distinct question, individual outputs and recommendations could be perceived to be conflicting. However, a common theme embraced by the consortia represented here is exploration of the most appropriate use of animals for the safety assessment of new medicinal products. This short review summarizes presentations and discussions from a symposium describing the work of four industry consortia and considers whether their recommendations can be aligned into realistic approaches to improve future toxicology testing strategies, highlighting justification for the appropriate use of different animal species and opportunities for reductions in animal use without compromising patient safety.