ICH S1 prospective evaluation study: weight of evidence approach to predict outcome and value of 2-year rat carcinogenicity studies. A report from the regulatory authorities subgroup
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) initiated a process in 2012 to revise the S1B Guideline “Testing for Carcinogenicity of Pharmaceuticals”. Previous retrospective analysis indicated the importance of histopathological risk factors in chronic toxicity studies, evidence of endocrine perturbation, and positive genetic toxicology results as potentially predictive indicators of carcinogenic risk. In addition, a relationship between pharmacodynamic activity and carcinogenicity outcome in long-term rodent studies has been reported. It was postulated that these factors could be evaluated in a Weight-of-Evidence (WoE) approach to predict the outcome of a 2-year rat study. Methods: The ICH S1B(R1) Expert Working Group (EWG) conducted a Prospective Evaluation Study (PES) to determine the regulatory feasibility of this WoE approach. Drug Regulatory Authorities (DRAs) evaluated 49 Carcinogenicity Assessment Documents (CADs), which describe the WoE for submitted pharmaceutical compounds. Each compound was categorized into a carcinogenic risk category including a statement of the value of the 2-year rat study. The outcome of the completed 2-year rat studies was evaluated in relation to the prospective CAD to determine the accuracy of predictions. Results: Based on the results of the PES, the EWG concluded that the evaluation process for assessing human carcinogenic risk of pharmaceuticals described in ICH S1B could be expanded to include a WoE approach. Approximately 27% of 2-year rat studies could be avoided in cases where DRAs and sponsors unanimously agreed that such a study would not add value. Discussion: Key factors supporting a WoE assessment were identified: data that inform carcinogenic potential based on drug target biology and the primary pharmacologic mechanism of the parent compound and major human metabolites; results from secondary pharmacology screens for this compound and major human metabolites that inform carcinogenic risk; histopathology data from repeated-dose toxicity studies; evidence for hormonal perturbation; genotoxicity data; and evidence of immune modulation. The outcome of the PES indicates that a WoE approach can be used in place of conducting a 2-year rat study for some pharmaceuticals. These data were used by the ICH S1B(R1) EWG to write the R1 Addendum to the S1B Guideline published in August 2022.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle