DOCSLIB.ORG

INTEGRATED TOXICOLOGY (3Rs in ACTION) and HOW in VITRO TOXICOLOGY IS CRITICAL for SUCCESS for a DERMAL IND

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
INTEGRATED TOXICOLOGY (3Rs in ACTION) and HOW in VITRO TOXICOLOGY IS CRITICAL for SUCCESS for a DERMAL IND INTEGRATED TOXICOLOGY (3Rs IN ACTION) AND HOW IN VITRO TOXICOLOGY IS CRITICAL FOR SUCCESS FOR A DERMAL IND Clive Roper BSc PhD CBiol CSci MRSB 28 September 2017 NorCal SOT, South San Francisco, CA, USA EVERY STEP OF THE WAY EVERY STEP OF THE WAY INTRODUCTION A LITTLE HISTORY In vitro testing has been mainstream in toxicology since the 1970’s • In discovery, on and off target efficacy screens are performed in cellular, and increasingly, computational (in silico) models • The hERG channel test and computational models are well integrated into the safety pharmacology testing paradigm • A genetic toxicology programme is initiated with screening in vitro and in silico assays then progresses to GLP in vitro bacterial and mammalian cellular and finally rodent in vivo This presentation focuses on utilizing 3Rs approaches to integrated in silico, in chemico, in vitro and in vivo for dermal IND 3 EVERY STEP OF THE WAY WHERE DID THE 3Rs START? Russell WMS and Burch RL (1959) The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Methuen, London. 1959 3Rs 3Rs 3Rs REPLACEMENT REDUCTION REFINEMENT 4 EVERY STEP OF THE WAY 1959 • Politics – Dwight D Eisenhower was US President – Harold McMillan was UK Prime Minister • Music – Mack the Knife – Bobby Darin – A fool such as I – Elvis Presley – Pillow talk – Doris Day • Sport – Los Angeles Dodgers won the World Series Baseball – Boston Celtics won the NBA Basketball 2017 • Politics • Donald J Trump is the US President • Theresa May is the UK Prime Minister • Music • Too Good at Goodbyes - Sam Smith • Sport • Who will be in the World Series Baseball? • Will the Cubbies repeat 2016? • Who will be in the NBA Basketball? SCIENTIFIC ORGANISATIONS This is NOT an exhaustive list EURL-ECVAM European Union Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing JaCVAM Japanese Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods ICCVAM Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods NC3Rs UK National Centre for 3Rs NA3RsC North American 3Rs Collaborative (www.NA3RsC.org) 7 EVERY STEP OF THE WAY NORTH AMERICAN 3RS COLLABORATIVE http://www.na3rsc.org/home.html 8 EVERY STEP OF THE WAY WHAT IS INTEGRATED TOXICOLOGY? WHAT IS INTEGRATED TOXICOLOGY? There are many different definitions! We define this as A testing strategy or regime that utilises the best tests available (in silico, in chemico, in vitro or in vivo) in order to confirm the test article safety Use the right tools in your toolbox for each test article!!! 10 EVERY STEP OF THE WAY REGULATORY ACCEPTANCE OF AN INTEGRATED TOXICOLOGY Example: Genetic Toxicology Testing strategies include: • In silico (e.g. LHASA, Leadscope, Simulations Plus) • Bacterial (bacterial reverse mutation assay aka Ames) • Mammalian (chrom abs, MLA, in vitro micronucleus) • In vivo mammalian (rodent micronucleus, comet) Regulators accept these strategies • Pharma ICH S2(R1) & M7 • Reach, consumer, agrochemicals • industrial chemicals … 11 EVERY STEP OF THE WAY A SIMPLIFIED MODEL OF INTEGRATED TOXICOLOGY Positive & negative feedback loops in silico +ve/ -ve feedback in chemico toxicity efficacy in vivo in vitro 12 EVERY STEP OF THE WAY WHAT IS IN VITRO TOXICOLOGY? WHAT IS IN VITRO TOXICOLOGY? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_toxicology “In vitro toxicity testing is the scientific analysis of the effects of toxic chemical substances on cultured bacteria or mammalian cells. In vitro (literally 'in glass') testing methods are employed primarily to identify potentially hazardous chemicals and/or to confirm the lack of certain toxic properties in the early stages of the development of potentially useful new substances such as therapeutic drugs, agricultural chemicals and food additives” 14 EVERY STEP OF THE WAY WHAT IS IN VITRO TOXICOLOGY? In my opinion! Is it new? No What does it do? Replaces in vivo, works alongside in vivo, answers different questions (e.g. AOPs) Does it replace in vivo models? Sometimes Is it validated? Sometimes Do regulatory authorities accept it? Sometimes 3Rs Can strategic decisions be made? Yes Do they only involve human samples? No It’s not simple to answer these and other questions 15 EVERY STEP OF THE WAY TOPICAL, DERMAL OR TRANSDERMAL? TOPICAL, DERMAL OR TRANSDERMAL DRUG Definitions Topical drug • Active on the skin e.g. treatment for hospital MRSA Dermal drug • Active in the skin e.g. treatment for basal cell carcinoma or actinic keratosis Transdermal drug • Active elsewhere, i.e. requires to be delivered via the systemic circulation e.g. hormonal drug therapy and nicotine replacement 17 EVERY STEP OF THE WAY A FOCUS ON DERMAL APPLICATIONS FOR DERMAL PRODUCTS In vitro skin penetration/ distribution In vitro skin penetration/ distribution with human skin are used • to screen in new actives at early discovery • to support development & aid selection of formulations at lead optimisation • in support for choosing whether the drug should be used for • topical, dermal or transdermal • to repurpose drug candidates • that have been deselected due to, for example, • poor oral bioavailability • high first pass metabolism 19 EVERY STEP OF THE WAY DERMAL ABSORPTION AND DISTRIBUTION A brief introduction 20 EVERY STEP OF THE WAY COMPARE SPECIES FOR TRANSLATION Human versus Rat 1.5 ) 1.2 2 0.9 0.6 0.3 Cumulative Absorption (µg equiv./cm Absorption(µg equiv./cm Cumulative 0.0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Time (h) Skin from toxicology species are tested alongside human skin to derive estimates or to confirm safety and efficacy for translational toxicology COMPARE FORMULATIONS Use flux for transdermal delivery 40 35 30 /h) 2 25 20 15 Flux (ng equiv./cm (ng equiv./cm Flux 10 5 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Time (h) Select formulations with the chosen characteristics for the test item, remain on skin, target the skin or for transdermal drug delivery ABSORPTION AND STRATUM CORNEUM TOGETHER Examine the entire data together for decision making 60 50 /h) 2 40 60 ) 2 30 50 20 40 Absorption (ng (ng equiv./cm Absorption 10 30 0 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Time (h) 10 Terminal Distribution of Radioactivity (ng equiv./cm (ng Radioactivity of Distribution Terminal 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 23 EVERY STEP OF THE WAY Tape Strip No. TIME COURSE DISTRIBUTION Pendlington et al. (2008). Development of a Modified In Vitro Skin Absorption Method to Study the Epidermal/Dermal Disposition of a Contact Allergen in Human Skin. Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology, 27: 283–294 24 A CASE STUDY: BUTENAFINE HCl in LOTRIMIN ULTRA® GLP full mass balance studies can provide clinical trials justification or even to replace them 26 EVERY STEP OF THE WAY REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY 82; 14-19 Mitra A, Kim N, Spark D, Toner F, Craig S, Roper C and Meyer T (2016). Use of an in vitro human skin permeation assay to assess bioequivalence of two topical cream formulations containing butenafine hydrochloride (1%, w/w) Lotrimin Ultra® contains • butenafine hydrochloride (1%, w/w ) – active ingredient • diethanolamine (DEA) at 0.3% (w/w) as pH adjuster BUT, DEA became a listed substance on California's Proposition 65 (June 13) SO, reformulate Lotrimin Ultra® • by replacing DEA with triethanolamine (TEA) at 0.43% (w/w) – molar equivalent BUT, there was a need to confirm bioequivalence!!! An in vitro skin penetration & distribution study was designed, following discussions with the US FDA, as a surrogate for a clinical bioequivalence test 27 EVERY STEP OF THE WAY REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY 82; 14-19 Mitra A, Kim N, Spark D, Toner F, Craig S, Roper C and Meyer T (2016). Use of an in vitro human skin permeation assay to assess bioequivalence of two topical cream formulations containing butenafine hydrochloride (1%, w/w) FDA asked us to consider and answer 3 components • Full FDA bioanalysis method • Demonstrate differences in a single formulation in a single donor for • 50%, 100% and 150% of required butenafine HCl concentration • Main test for equivalence between • New and old formulations 28 EVERY STEP OF THE WAY REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY 82; 14-19 Mitra A, Kim N, Spark D, Toner F, Craig S, Roper C and Meyer T (2016). Use of an in vitro human skin permeation assay to assess bioequivalence of two topical cream formulations containing butenafine hydrochloride (1%, w/w) The LC-MS/MS method was validated for • Selectivity, sensitivity, linearity of the calibration curve, • precision & accuracy, recovery, stability and dilution integrity According to the • US FDA guidance document for bioanalytical method validation (FDA, 2001) • EMA guidelines on bioanalytical validation (EMA, 2012a,b) and • VICH GL1 and VICH GL2 guidelines for validation of analytical procedures • VICH GL1 (Validation Definition) and • VICH GL2 (Validation Methodology) • October 1998; effective October 1999 29 EVERY STEP OF THE WAY REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY 82; 14-19 Mitra A, Kim N, Spark D, Toner F, Craig S, Roper C and Meyer T (2016). Use of an in vitro human skin permeation assay to assess bioequivalence of two topical cream formulations containing butenafine hydrochloride (1%, w/w) Concentration differences detectable in the method were tested by • Preparing the formulation containing DEA with either • Butenafine HCl at 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5%, w/w • Obtaining full thickness human abdomen skin sample from a • 34 years old female patient • Dermatomed • 18 samples of skin placed into Franz cells • Barrier test • Each formulation was applied at 2 mg/cm2 to • 6 skin samples from this same donor 30 EVERY STEP OF THE WAY REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY 82; 14-19 Mitra A, Kim N, Spark D, Toner F, Craig S, Roper C and Meyer T (2016). Use of an in vitro human skin permeation assay to assess bioequivalence of two topical cream formulations containing butenafine hydrochloride (1%, w/w) Samples collected • Receptor fluid (represents systemically available) • 0 h (predose), 1, 2, 4, 8 and 24 h post dose • Skin washed & dried • 24 h post dose • Stratum corneum removed with 20 tape strips • 24 h post dose • Exposed epidermis and dermis separated • 24 h post dose Samples analysed by LC-MS/MS 31 EVERY STEP OF THE WAY REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY 82; 14-19 Mitra A, Kim N, Spark D, Toner F, Craig S, Roper C and Meyer T (2016).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bioequivalence Study Protocol
    Study Code: Date: NOV2020/01917 NCT04406194 28.04.2020 Version: Clinical Study Protocol 1.0 OPEN-LABEL, RANDOMISED, SINGLE ORAL DOSE, TWO-PERIOD, CROSS-OVER TRIAL TO ASSESS THE FAVICOVIR 200 MG FILM BIOEQUIVALENCE OF TABLET (TEST DRUG) IN COMPARISON WITH AVIGAN 200 MG FILM TABLET (REFERENCE DRUG) IN HEALTHY MALE SUBJECTS UNDER FASTING CONDITIONS CLINICAL STUDY PROTOCOL “CONFIDENTIAL” Principal Investigator: Prof. Dr. Muradiye Nacak Clinical Center: Gaziantep Üniversitesi FARMAGEN GCP Center, Gaziantep –Turkey Sponsor: Atabay Kimya San. ve Tic. A.Ş. İstanbul-Turkey Contract Research Organisation (CRO) : ALPAN Farma Ltd.Şti. Kayseri- Turkey Contracted Analytical Laboratory: Novagenix Bioanalytical Drug R&D Centre, Ankara - Turkey NOTE: No part of this document may be reproduced. The document should be treated as the confidential property of Atabay Kimya San. ve Tic. A.Ş., Alpan Farma and Novagenix. Not divulged to unauthorised persons in any form, including publications and presentations, without written consent of Atabay Kimya San. ve Tic. A.Ş., Alpan Farma and Novagenix. Page 1 of 67 Study Code: Date: NOV2020/01917 28.04.2020 Version: Clinical Study Protocol 1.0 STUDY SYNOPSIS Study Title: Open-label, randomised, single oral dose, two-period, cross-over trial Favicovir 200 mg Film Tablet(Test to assess to bioequivalence of Drug) Avigan 200 mg Film Tablet (Reference in comparison with Drug) in healthy male subjects under fasting conditions Study Code: NOV2020/01917 Drugs: Test Drug* Favicovir 200 mg Film Tablet : “ ” containing 200 mg (Atabay-Turkey). favipiravir *: This drug is manufactured by Atabay Kimya San. ve Tic. A.Ş., Turkey. Reference Drug** Avigan 200 mg Film Tablet : “ ” containing 200 mg (Toyama Chemical Industry Co.Ltd./Japan).
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Pharmacology 1: Phase 1 Studies and Early Drug Development
    Clinical Pharmacology 1: Phase 1 Studies and Early Drug Development Gerlie Gieser, Ph.D. Office of Clinical Pharmacology, Div. IV Objectives • Outline the Phase 1 studies conducted to characterize the Clinical Pharmacology of a drug; describe important design elements of and the information gained from these studies. • List the Clinical Pharmacology characteristics of an Ideal Drug • Describe how the Clinical Pharmacology information from Phase 1 can help design Phase 2/3 trials • Discuss the timing of Clinical Pharmacology studies during drug development, and provide examples of how the information generated could impact the overall clinical development plan and product labeling. Phase 1 of Drug Development CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH PRE POST AND CLINICAL APPROVAL 1 DISCOVERY DEVELOPMENT 2 3 PHASE e e e s s s a a a h h h P P P Clinical Pharmacology Studies Initial IND (first in human) NDA/BLA SUBMISSION Phase 1 – studies designed mainly to investigate the safety/tolerability (if possible, identify MTD), pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of an investigational drug in humans Clinical Pharmacology • Study of the Pharmacokinetics (PK) and Pharmacodynamics (PD) of the drug in humans – PK: what the body does to the drug (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion) – PD: what the drug does to the body • PK and PD profiles of the drug are influenced by physicochemical properties of the drug, product/formulation, administration route, patient’s intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., organ dysfunction, diseases, concomitant medications,
    [Show full text]
  • Narrow Therapeutic Index Drugs
    Quality and Bioequivalence Standards for Narrow Therapeutic Index Drugs Lawrence X. Yu, Ph.D. Deputy Director for Science and Chemistry Office of Generic Drugs Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Food and Drug Administration GPhA 2011 Fall Technical Workshop 1 Bioequivalence • The absence of a significant difference in the rate and extent to which the active ingredient or active moiety in pharmaceutical equivalents or pharmaceutical alternatives becomes available at the site of drug action when administrated at the same molar dose under similar conditions in an appropriately designed study…” (21 CFR §320.1) 2 Plasma Concentration Profile Cmax 10000 AUC ln Concentration 1000 Concentration Time Tmax - time of maximum concentration 100 Time 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 Possible Outcome of BE Studies Demonstrate BE Fail to Demonstrate BIE Fail to Demonstrate BE Demonstrate BIE Demonstrate BIE 80% T/R (%) 125% 4 5 FDA 12 Year BE Data Distribution of AUCt Ratios Average difference = 3.56% 10 N = 2069 8 6 Percent of Total(%) of Percent 4 2 0 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 1.20 6 AUC Point Estimate (T/R) Effect of Variability on BE Studies High variability 80% T/R (%) 125% 7 Development of BE Standard for Highly Variable Drugs 4/2004 First presentation to the FDA Advisory Committee 10/2006 Second presentation to the FDA Advisory Committee 3/2007 Received the first ANDA which used the new FDA BE approach 5/2007 Critical Path Opportunities for Generic Drugs BE of HVD 1/2008 FDA OGD’s first publication on BE of HVD (Pharm.
    [Show full text]
  • ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection
    ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection Technical Report No. 138 EUROPEAN CENTRE OFOR EC TOXICOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY OF CHEMICALS ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection Technical Report No. 138 Brussels, March 2021 ISSN-2079-1526-138 (online) ECETOC TR No. 138 1 ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection 224504 ECETOC Technical Report No. 138 © Copyright – ECETOC AISBL European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals Rue Belliard 40, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. Applications to reproduce, store, copy or translate should be made to the Secretary General. ECETOC welcomes such applications. Reference to the document, its title and summary may be copied or abstracted in data retrieval systems without subsequent reference. The content of this document has been prepared and reviewed by experts on behalf of ECETOC with all possible care and from the available scientific information. It is provided for information only. ECETOC cannot accept any responsibility or liability and does not provide a warranty for any use or interpretation of the material contained in the publication. ECETOC TR No. 138 2 ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection ECETOC Guidance on Dose Selection Table of Contents 1. SUMMARY 6 2. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND PRINCIPLES 9 2.1. Background and Principles 9 2.2. Current Regulatory Framework and Guidance 10 2.2.1. Historical perspectives and the evolution of test guidelines 10 2.2.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Interaction Profile
    INTERACTION PROFILE FOR: PERSISTENT CHEMICALS FOUND IN FISH (CHLORINATED DIBENZO-p-DIOXINS, HEXACHLOROBENZENE, p,p’-DDE, METHYLMERCURY, and POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry May 2004 iii ACKNOWLEDGMENT The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) wishes to thank the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its support in the production of this Interaction Profile. v PREFACE The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) mandates that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) shall assess whether adequate information on health effects is available for the priority hazardous substances. Where such information is not available or under development, ATSDR shall, in cooperation with the National Toxicology Program, initiate a program of research to determine these health effects. The Act further directs that where feasible, ATSDR shall develop methods to determine the health effects of substances in combination with other substances with which they are commonly found. To carry out the legislative mandate, ATSDR’s Division of Toxicology (DT) has developed and coordinated a mixtures program that includes trend analysis to identify the mixtures most often found in environmental media, in vivo and in vitro toxicological testing of mixtures, quantitative modeling of joint action, and methodological development for assessment of joint toxicity. These efforts are interrelated. For example, the trend analysis suggests mixtures of concern for which assessments need to be conducted. If data are not available, further research is recommended. The data thus generated often contribute to the design, calibration or validation of the methodology.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies Submitted in Ndas Or Inds — General Considerations
    Guidance for Industry Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies Submitted in NDAs or INDs — General Considerations DRAFT GUIDANCE This guidance document is being distributed for comment purposes only. Comments and suggestions regarding this draft document should be submitted within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register of the notice announcing the availability of the draft guidance. Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number listed in the notice of availability that publishes in the Federal Register. For questions regarding this draft document contact the CDER Office of Clinical Pharmacology at 301-796-5008 or [email protected]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) March 2014 Biopharmaceutics Guidance for Industry Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies Submitted in NDAs or INDs— General Considerations Additional copies are available from: Office of Communications Division of Drug Information, WO51, Room 2201 Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993 http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm Phone: 301-796-3400; Fax: 301-847-8714 [email protected] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food
    [Show full text]
  • Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products
    English translation of Attachment 1 of Division-Notification 0229 No. 10 of the Pharmaceutical and Food Safety Bureau, dated February 29, 2012 Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products Index Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Terminology Section 3: Tests A. Oral immediate release products and enteric-coated products I. Reference and test products II. Bioequivalence studies 1. Test methods 1) Design 2) Number of subjects 3) Selection of subjects 4) Drug administration a. Dose b. Single vs. multiple dose studies i. Single dose studies ii. Multiple dose studies 5) Measurement of biological samples a. Biological fluids to be sampled b. Sampling schedule 1 c. Substances to be measured d. Analytical method 6) Washout period 2. Assessment of bioequivalence 1) Parameters to be assessed 2) Bioequivalent range 3) Statistical analysis 4) Acceptance criteria III. Pharmacodynamic studies IV. Clinical studies V. Dissolution tests 1. Number of vessels 2. Testing time 3. Testing conditions 1) Products containing acidic drugs 2) Products containing neutral or basic drugs, and coated products 3) Products containing poorly soluble drugs 4) Enteric-coated products 4. Acceptance criteria for similarity of dissolution profiles VI. Reporting of test results 1. Samples 2. Results 1) Summary 2) Dissolution tests 3) Bioequivalence studies 4) Pharmacodynamic studies 5) Clinical studies 2 B. Oral extended release products I. Reference and test products II. Bioequivalence studies 1. Test method 2. Assessment of bioequivalence 1) Bioequivalence range, parameters, data transformation and statistical analysis 2) Acceptance criteria III. Pharmacodynamic and clinical studies IV. Dissolution tests 1. Number of units 2. Testing time 3. Test conditions 4. Acceptance criteria for similarity and equivalence of dissolution profiles V.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Selected in Vitro Assays for Assessing the Toxicity of Chemicals and Their Mixtures
    COMPARISON OF SELECTED IN VITRO ASSAYS FOR ASSESSING THE TOXICITY OF CHEMICALS AND THEIR MIXTURES Rola Azzi A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Chemical Safety and Applied Toxicology Laboratories School of Safety Science Faculty of Science The University of New South Wales June 2006 Certificate of Originality Certificate of Originality I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any degree at UNSW or any other education institution, except where due acknowledgment is made in the thesis. Any contributions made to the research by others, which whom I have worked, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project’s design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged. Rola Azzi June 2006 i Acknowledgments Acknowledgments I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor Dr Amanda Hayes for her assistance, constant encouragement and expertise. Without her support and guidance this project would not have been possible. I am also grateful to Associate Professor Chris Winder, for his constant support, advice, and scientific expertise throughout my work on this project. I would also like to express my sincerest gratitude and appreciation to my uncle, Associate Professor Rachad Saliba, who was a constant support during the writing of this thesis, and was devoted to helping me grasp the science of statistics, and its ability to transform numbers into a story.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Gastrointestinal Tract Variability Onłoral Drug Absorption and Pharmacokinetics
    European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 162 (2021) 105812 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejps Impact of gastrointestinal tract variability on oral drug absorption and pharmacokinetics: An UNGAP review Zahari Vinarov a,b, Mohammad Abdallah c, Jos´e A.G. Agundez d, Karel Allegaert e,f, Abdul W. Basit g, Marlies Braeckmans a, Jens Ceulemans h, Maura Corsetti i,j, Brendan T. Griffin k, Michael Grimm l, Daniel Keszthelyi m, Mirko Koziolek n, Christine M. Madla g, Christophe Matthys o,p, Laura E. McCoubrey g, Amitava Mitra q, Christos Reppas r, Jef Stappaerts h, Nele Steenackers o, Natalie L. Trevaskis c, Tim Vanuytsel s, Maria Vertzoni r, Werner Weitschies l, Clive Wilson t, Patrick Augustijns a,u,1,* a Drug Delivery and Disposition, Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium b Department of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Engineering, Sofia University, Sofia, Bulgaria c Drug Delivery, Disposition and Dynamics, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, Australia d University Institute of Molecular Pathology Biomarkers, UEx. ARADyAL, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Caceres,´ Spain e Department of Hospital Pharmacy, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands f Department of Development and Regeneration and Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium g UCL School of Pharmacy, University College London,
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Profile for Zinc
    TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR ZINC U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry August 2005 ZINC ii DISCLAIMER The use of company or product name(s) is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ZINC iii UPDATE STATEMENT A Toxicological Profile for Zinc, Draft for Public Comment was released in September 2003. This edition supersedes any previously released draft or final profile. Toxicological profiles are revised and republished as necessary. For information regarding the update status of previously released profiles, contact ATSDR at: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Toxicology/Toxicology Information Branch 1600 Clifton Road NE Mailstop F-32 Atlanta, Georgia 30333 ZINC vi *Legislative Background The toxicological profiles are developed in response to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 (Public law 99-499) which amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund). This public law directed ATSDR to prepare toxicological profiles for hazardous substances most commonly found at facilities on the CERCLA National Priorities List and that pose the most significant potential threat to human health, as determined by ATSDR and the EPA. The availability of the revised priority list of 275 hazardous substances was announced in the Federal Register on November 17, 1997 (62 FR 61332). For prior versions of the list of substances, see Federal Register notices dated April 29, 1996 (61 FR 18744); April 17, 1987 (52 FR 12866); October 20, 1988 (53 FR 41280); October 26, 1989 (54 FR 43619); October 17, 1990 (55 FR 42067); October 17, 1991 (56 FR 52166); October 28, 1992 (57 FR 48801); and February 28, 1994 (59 FR 9486).
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Profile for Copper
    TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR COPPER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry September 2004 COPPER ii DISCLAIMER The use of company or product name(s) is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. COPPER iii UPDATE STATEMENT A Toxicological Profile for Copper, Draft for Public Comment was released in September 2002. This edition supersedes any previously released draft or final profile. Toxicological profiles are revised and republished as necessary. For information regarding the update status of previously released profiles, contact ATSDR at: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Toxicology/Toxicology Information Branch 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop F-32 Atlanta, Georgia 30333 COPPER vii QUICK REFERENCE FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS Toxicological Profiles are a unique compilation of toxicological information on a given hazardous substance. Each profile reflects a comprehensive and extensive evaluation, summary, and interpretation of available toxicologic and epidemiologic information on a substance. Health care providers treating patients potentially exposed to hazardous substances will find the following information helpful for fast answers to often-asked questions. Primary Chapters/Sections of Interest Chapter 1: Public Health Statement: The Public Health Statement can be a useful tool for educating patients about possible exposure to a hazardous substance. It explains a substance’s relevant toxicologic properties in a nontechnical, question-and-answer format, and it includes a review of the general health effects observed following exposure. Chapter 2: Relevance to Public Health: The Relevance to Public Health Section evaluates, interprets, and assesses the significance of toxicity data to human health.
    [Show full text]
  • (GIVIMP) for the Development and Implementation of in Vitro Methods for 829 Regulatory Use in Human Safety Assessment
    1 2 Draft GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON GOOD IN VITRO METHOD PRACTICES (GIVIMP) 3 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF IN VITRO METHODS FOR 4 REGULATORY USE IN HUMAN SAFETY ASSESSMENT 5 6 FOREWORD 7 8 A guidance document on Good In Vitro Method Practices (GIVIMP) for the development and 9 implementation of in vitro methods for regulatory use in human safety assessment was 10 identified as a high priority requirement. The aim is to reduce the uncertainties in cell and 11 tissue-based in vitro method derived predictions by applying all necessary good scientific, 12 technical and quality practices from in vitro method development to in vitro method 13 implementation for regulatory use. 14 The draft guidance is coordinated by the European validation body EURL ECVAM and has 15 been accepted on the work plan of the OECD test guideline programme since April 2015 as a 16 joint activity between the Working Group on Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and the 17 Working Group of the National Coordinators of the Test Guidelines Programme (WNT). 18 The draft document prepared by the principal co-authors has been sent in September 2016 to 19 all 37 members of the European Union Network of Laboratories for the Validation of 20 Alternative Methods (EU-NETVAL1) and has been subsequently discussed at the EU- 21 NETVAL meeting on the 10th of October 2016. 22 By November/December 2016 the comments of the OECD Working Group on GLP and 23 nominated experts of the OECD WNT will be forwarded to EURL ECVAM who will 24 incorporate these and prepare an updated version.
    [Show full text]