How to use irrelevant plasma and urine drug concentration in doping
control in the FEI.
PL Toutain
UMR 181 Physiopathologie et Toxicologie Expérimentales; INRA, ENVT; 22nd July 2010
ECOLE NATIONALE VETERINAIRE T O U L O U S E
2
Objectives of the presentation
• To explain the EHLSC risk analysis approach:
– To determine Irrelevant Plasma (IPC) & Irrelevant Urine Concentration (IUC)
– To select an International Screening Limit (ISL) – To obtain a Detection Time (DT)
– To transform a DT to a Withdrawal Time (WT)
• In order to see how FEI can used these information either directly or after its own risk analysis.
The European Horse Scientific Liason Committee
The view expressed in this presentation are those of the author and do not commit the official policy of the EHLSC
4
An anti-doping program is first characterized by a set of values
• Sound science does not exist as 'ready for use' in the policy
development process;
– Before to explore how FEI can use
International Screening Limits (ISL) as derived by EHSLC, FEI should formally express its set of values:
What is a clean sport?
• Only a level playing field?
• Does this include
protection of the horse?
–If yes, what is the priority: to protect the horse or to
protect a business model?
6
Science vs. values
• It should be admitted that science is not able to resolve FEI choices about what should be done in the case of competing interests.
• Science is universal, not ethics
• A risk for FEI is to raise a question that is mainly of ethical nature and attempt to
solve it using scientific arguments
An anti-doping program is first characterized by a set of values
• Prohibition of the presence of any substances which
could give a horse an advantage or a disadvantage in a horse during a race (or training)
• BUT:
• The goal of the EHSLC policy is not to indirectly impede bona fide veterinary medications
– and EHSLC have established a general policy that distinguishes the control of any drug exposure for all illicit substances (doping control) and the control of a drug effect for therapeutic
substances (medication control).
8
Testing exposure and the end of a zero
tolerance approach for medication control
Need for limitation on the sensitivity of testing for therapeutic agents
!
(ng/ml)
10 1.0 0.1
20 50 100 Time (days) 5 h 2 days 20 days Detection time
The current analytical techniques are very
performing and laboratory equipments are not a limiting factors to the efficiency of most drugs
10
Testing exposure and the end of a zero tolerance approach for medication control
• Increasing sensitivity of analytical techniques is :
– Desirable for potent illegitimate drugs – Unsuitable for therapeutic substances
• because trace concentrations of
therapeutic substances totally irrelevant in terms of effects, may be detected a long time after their administration
Doping control policy at time of racing
• The EHSLC' question
– How to avoid to detect trace level of drugs without any pharmacological meaning
• The question in operational terms
– What should be the order of magnitude of LOD (LOQ) of analytical techniques for the control of drug effect (not drug exposure )
12
The “zero tolerance rule” is not suitable for medication control
• This opens the way to a new approach for legitimate
medication based upon PK/PD principles to estimate the order of magnitude of the so-called irrelevant drug
concentrations in plasma and urine and to limit the
sensitivity of analytical techniques used for medication control.
The decision making process on no significant effect levels
by EHSLC.
A risk analysis integrated
approach
14
What is risk analysis?
A systematic way of collecting, evaluating and recording information leading to
recommendations for a position or action in response to an identified hazard (here medications or illicit substances)
The 3 main steps of a Risk analysis
1. Risk assessment
2. Risk management
3. Risk communication
Science
Decision
Communication
Irrelevant Plasma concentration Irrelevant Urine Concentration
International screening limits
Detection Times
16
Why a risk analysis
• The reasons to follow a risk analysis are when harmonization is in order, regulatory decisions need to take into account
competitive interests in an unbiased and transparent approach.
FEI will benefit to apply Risk Analysis techniques in making
better decision
18
An example:
Phenylbutazone
The 3 main steps of a Risk analysis 1. Risk assessment
2. Risk management
3. Risk communication
20
The PK/PD approach to
determine irrelevant plasma or urine drug concentrations
Steps :
1: effective plasma concentration (EPC) 2: Irrelevant plasma concentration (IPC) 3: Irrelevant urine concentration (IUC)
ED=
ED - is a hybrid parameter (PK and PD) - is not a genuine PD drug parameter
Clearance x Effective plasma Concentration
Bioavailability
PD
PK
What is exactly an effective dose (ED) ?
22
Computation of an Effective Plasma Concentration (EPC)
Clearance
Dose Effective
EPC _
Step 1 : example of phenylbutazone
• Standard dose: 4.4 mg/kg/24 h
• Plasma clearance: 41 mL/kg/h or about 1000 mL/kg/24 h
EPC = 4400 µg.kg-1.24h-1
1000 mL.kg-1.24h-1 = 4.4 µg/mL
Note: from PK/PD, 1.5 to 4.3 µg/mL
Progressive list :
24
Freund adjuvant arthritis in horse
Carpitis
12 14
8 4
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Time(h)
Stride length (cm)
1.25 1.0
1.5 2 4
DOSE mg/kg
PK/PD: Phenylbutazone
26
8 0 16
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 h
Stride length (cm) 1
0.5
2 DOSE mg/kg
PK/PD: Flunixine
Step 2: computation of irrelevant plasma concentrations
• An IPC can be deduced from EPC by applying a safety factor (SF) to EPC:
IPC = EPC SF
How to select SF?
!
28
Step 2: how to select safety factor
SF
Values
considerations
Scientific considerations
• shape of the dose-effect relationship
• paucity of data
• class of the drug
• large interindividual variability
• effect having different potency Should reflect the degree of confidence we want the IPC is actually an IPC (Values) EHSLC: no effect (2%)
Safety factor:
default EHSLC value=500
• I proposed a default SF = 500 500 = 50 x 10
Transform an EPC into an IPC for a given horse
30
Safety factor : 50
100 Emax
2
EC50 = EPC EC50
50
With a SF=50, effect is about 2% of the effect of interest
Effect (%)
Safety factor:
default EHSLC value=500
• I proposed a default SF = 500 500 = 50 x 10
Transform an EPC into an IPC
for a given horse Interindividual horse variability
PK variability PD variability
32
Step 2 : the case of Phenylbutazone
by rounding up: IPC= 10 ng/mL mL mL ng
ng
IPC EPC 8 . 8 /
500 / 4400
500
Step 3: determination of irrelevant urine concentration (IUC)
IUC = IPC x RSS
steady state urine to plasma concentration ratio
urine
Pseudo-equilibrium state Plasma 10
1
concentration
(time) Plasma
Urine
Rss = 10
34
Step 3 irrelevant urine concentration (IUC): the case of PBZ
• R
SS= 1
• IUC = IPC x R
SS• IUC = 10 ng/mL x 1 = 10 ng/mL
The 3 main steps of a Risk analysis
Risk assessment
Risk management
Risk communication
36
Risk management
Determination of the ISL
International Screening Limits:
An instruction (expressed as a concentration) to
laboratories from racing authorities to control the detection of drugs commonly used in equine medication at a level that is considered NOT to be threat to welfare of the
horse, alter its racing or compromise the integrity of racing
From the IPC/IUC to the ISL
• ISLs are fixed by risk managers (FEI vs.
EHSLC)
– Risk management is not a scientific exercise but should be scientifically sound
– Possibility to consider at this step non scientific considerations as harmonization
– IPCs/IUCs are starting values
– selection of one of the values of the possible values of the agreed ordinal scale
38
Why an ordinal scale?
• Selection of an ISL is a non quantitative decision and cannot be assimilated to a statistically founded threshold (as for
cortisol, testosterone…)
• Results of controls are qualitative (yes or no) and not quantitative
From IUC to IPC: An hypothetical example
• It is a Anti-inflammatory drug
• IUC=38 ng/mL
• Possible values of the ordinal scale for a ISL
– 10, 50, 100, 250, 500 etc
• The manager will likely choose either 10 or 50 ng/mL, the 2 values that bracket the IUC
• The final choice will take into account the difficulty or not to harmonize, if the drug is of major concern or not etc.
• It is mainly at that level that FEI can
differentiate its conclusions from those of EHSLC
40
The 3 main steps of a Risk analysis
Risk assessment Risk management
Risk communication
Risk communication
Detection Times vs.
Withdrawal Times
42
The question of Detection Time (DT)
• For medication control ISL is not "ready for use" information for veterinarians who
must advise owners or trainers on appropriate withholding times.
• Detection time is the only practical
information needed by veterinarians and horse industry that EHLSC can release
What is a detection time
•DT is the time at which the urinary (or plasma) concentrations of a drug, in all horses involved in a particular trial conducted according to the EHSLC guidance rules, are observed to be lower than the ISL when controls are performed using routine screening methods.
ISL
time
DT
44
46
Detection Time
• Detection time is not a parameter but a variable without statistical protection
– dose, route of administration, formulation, number of administrations etc.
Why some DT are so long?
2 /
44
1. 1 1
SF T Ln
DT
Safety Factor Half-life (h)
100
DT (days)
500
DT (days)
12 3.31 4.47
24 6.63 8.94
48 13.26 17.89
48
From the Detection Time
to a Withdrawal period
EHLSC decided to release Detection times (DT) an not Withdrawal time (WT)
• DT: An information given by Authorities without statistical protection
• WT: A Vet recommendation based on his own risk analysis
50
Main factors affecting a WT
Dosage regimen:
• Dose
• Dosage interval
• Route of
administration
• Site of
administration
• etc
Drug
• formulation
• Source
• vehicle
Horse:
• Breed
• Age
• Sex
• Health status
• Food
• Rest/activity
• Training/out of training
Definition and the selected experimental design to
determine the WT:
• Number of horses
• Sampling time
• Urine pH
It is not the responsibility of EHLSC to guarantee a WP
From a detection time to a withdrawal time
• To help the veterinarian select a WT from a published DT the question of a safety span was explored using Monte Carlo Simulations (MCSs) (Toutain 2010.)
52
Conclusions
• To help FEI, I will suggest that FEI should:
1. Express formally what are its values and amongst them, what is the priority:
– A level playing field vs. animal welfare
2. Follow the principles of the risk analysis to take its
decision (ISL) in order to take into account competitive interests in an unbiased and transparent approach.
– Science and management are two different issues
– Science can describe the world, but science cannot prescribe what the world should be
3. Generate its own Detection Times or better, to initiate (participate) to international survey aiming to document factor of variability's of DT (population
pharmacokinetics)