Robert H. Heflich, Division of Genetic and Reproductive Toxicology, U.S. FDA/NCTR - Testimony

Document ID: FDA-2009-N-0519-0010
Document Type: Public Submission
Agency: Food And Drug Administration
Received Date: January 20 2010, at 11:49 AM Eastern Standard Time
Date Posted: January 20 2010, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Start Date: November 3 2009, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Due Date: February 24 2010, at 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
Tracking Number: 80a80831
View Document:  View as format xml

View Comment

New assays being recommended for the core ICH battery. Robert H. Heflich, Division of Genetic and Reproductive Toxicology, U.S. FDA/NCTR. The proposed ICH S2(R1) Guidance on Genotoxicity Testing and Data Interpretation contains the option of using either of two ‘equally suitable’ test batteries, both of which include an assay not part of the original core battery. Option 1 generally uses the same test battery structure described in the S2B Guidance; however Option 1 includes the in vitro micronucleus (MN) assay as an alternative for fulfilling the requirement of an in vitro mammalian cell assay. The in vitro MN assay is widely used, and has been subjected to several multilaboratory validation studies. Also, it provides data on potential aneugenicity as well as clastogenicity, can be automated and miniaturized, and a standardized, internationally agreed-upon protocol will soon be available in the form of an OECD Test Guideline (TG487). Finally, MN frequency (measured in a different context) bears a quantitative relationship to human cancer risk (Bonassi et al., 2007). On balance, the inclusion of the in vitro MN assay in Option 1 of the revised Guidance is a positive development that has a good chance of improving drug safety assessment. The picture is less positive with regard to the second new test added to the battery. The test battery for Option 2 essentially replaces the in vitro mammalian cell assay with a second in vivo assay. The first in vivo assay will usually be a MN assay on rodent hematopoietic cells, and several possibilities are listed for the second test (Comet assay, alkaline elution assay, transgenic mouse mutation assay, DNA adduct assay, liver unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) assay). While in vivo MN assay is suitable as one of the in vivo assays, there is a major problem with identifying a second in vivo assay for Option 2. The most likely tests that are named have two concerns: 1. The nature of the test 2. The stage of test

Attachments:

Robert H. Heflich, Division of Genetic and Reproductive Toxicology, U.S. FDA/NCTR - Testimony

Title:
Robert H. Heflich, Division of Genetic and Reproductive Toxicology, U.S. FDA/NCTR - Testimony

View Attachment: View as format pdf

Related Comments

    View All
Total: 8
Robert H. Heflich, Division of Genetic and Reproductive Toxicology, U.S. FDA/NCTR - Testimony
Public Submission    Posted: 01/20/2010     ID: FDA-2009-N-0519-0010

Feb 24,2010 11:59 PM ET
Michael C. Cimino, Ph.D. - Comment
Public Submission    Posted: 01/25/2010     ID: FDA-2009-N-0519-0014

Feb 24,2010 11:59 PM ET
Michael C. Cimino, Ph.D. - Comment
Public Submission    Posted: 01/25/2010     ID: FDA-2009-N-0519-0015

Feb 24,2010 11:59 PM ET
U.S. FDA/National Center for Toxicological Research - Testimony
Public Submission    Posted: 03/05/2010     ID: FDA-2009-N-0519-0025

Feb 24,2010 11:59 PM ET
Rosalie Elespuru, PhD - Testimony
Public Submission    Posted: 01/19/2010     ID: FDA-2009-N-0519-0009

Feb 24,2010 11:59 PM ET