Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Best Practices: Recommended ("Best") Practices for Informed (Non-blinded) Versus Masked (Blinded) Microscopic Evaluation in Animal Toxicity Studies.

This article describes the Society of Toxicologic Pathology's (STP) five recommended ("best") practices for appropriate use of informed (non-blinded) versus masked (blinded) microscopic evaluation in animal toxicity studies intended for regulatory review. (1) Informed microscopic evaluation is the default approach for animal toxicity studies. (2) Masked microscopic evaluation has merit for confirming preliminary diagnoses for target organs and/or defining thresholds ("no observed adverse effect level" and similar values) identified during an initial informed evaluation, addressing focused hypotheses, or satisfying guidance or requests from regulatory agencies. (3) If used as the approach for an animal toxicity study to investigate a specific research question, masking of the initial microscopic evaluation should be limited to withholding only information about the group (control or test article-treated) and dose equivalents. (4) The decision regarding whether or not to perform a masked microscopic evaluation is best made by a toxicologic pathologist with relevant experience. (5) Pathology peer review, performed to verify the microscopic diagnoses and interpretations by the study pathologist, should use an informed evaluation approach. The STP maintains that implementing these five best practices has and will continue to consistently deliver robust microscopic data with high sensitivity for animal toxicity studies intended for regulatory review. Consequently, when conducting animal toxicity studies, the advantages of informed microscopic evaluation for maximizing sensitivity outweigh the perceived advantages of minimizing bias through masked microscopic examination.

Opinion on Current Use of Non-Blinded Versus Blinded Histopathologic Evaluation in Animal Toxicity Studies.

The Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) explored current institutional practices for selecting between non-blinded versus blinded histopathologic evaluation during Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)-compliant, regulatory-type animal toxicity studies using a multi-question survey and STP-wide discussion (held at the 2019 STP annual meeting). Survey responses were received from 107 individuals representing 83 institutions that collectively employ 589 toxicologic pathologists. Most responses came from industry (N = 46, mainly biopharmaceutical or contract research organizations) and consultants (N = 24). For GLP-compliant animal toxicity studies, histopathologic evaluation usually involves initial (primary) non-blinded analysis, with post hoc informal blinded re-examination at the study pathologist's discretion to confirm subtle findings or establish thresholds. Initial blinded histopathologic evaluation sometimes is chosen by study pathologists to test formal hypotheses and/or by sponsors to address non-pathologist expectations about histopathology data objectivity. Current practice is that a blinded histopathologic evaluation is documented only if formal blinding (ie, using slides with coded labels) is employed, using simple statements without detailed methodology in the study protocol (or an amendment) and/or pathology report. Blinding is not an appropriate strategy for the initial histopathologic evaluation performed during pathology peer reviews of GLP-compliant animal toxicity studies. [Box: see text].

Adversity Considerations for Thyroid Follicular Cell Hypertrophy and Hyperplasia in Nonclinical Toxicity Studies: Results From the 6th ESTP International Expert Workshop.

The European Society of Toxicologic Pathology organized an expert workshop in May 2018 to address adversity considerations related to thyroid follicular cell hypertrophy and/or hyperplasia (FCHH), which is a common finding in nonclinical toxicity studies that can have important implications for risk assessment of pharmaceuticals, food additives, and environmental chemicals. The broad goal of the workshop was to facilitate better alignment in toxicologic pathology and regulatory sciences on how to determine adversity of FCHH. Key objectives were to describe common mechanisms leading to thyroid FCHH and potential functional consequences; provide working criteria to assess adversity of FCHH in context of associated findings; and describe additional methods and experimental data that may influence adversity determinations. The workshop panel was comprised of representatives from the European Union, Japan, and the United States. Participants shared case examples illustrating issues related to adversity assessments of thyroid changes. Provided here are summary discussions, key case presentations, and panel recommendations. This information should increase consistency in the interpretation of adverse changes in the thyroid based on pathology findings in nonclinical toxicity studies, help integrate new types of biomarker data into the review process, and facilitate a more systematic approach to communicating adversity determinations in toxicology reports.

Renal Papillary Rarefaction: An Artifact Mimicking Papillary Necrosis.

In histopathology, the presence of a tissue change that does not represent the tissue's normal appearance can often lead to an incorrect diagnosis and interpretation. These changes are collectively known as "artifacts" resulting from postmortem autolysis, improper fixation, problems with tissue handling or slide preparation procedures. Most tissue artifacts are obvious, yet some artifacts may be subtle, occur in relatively well-fixed tissue, and demand careful observation to avoid confusion with real biological lesions. The kidney often contains artifacts that may be observed throughout all regions of the renal parenchyma. Cortical tubule artifacts present the greatest challenge when discerning an artifact versus an induced lesion following exposure to a xenobiotic. However, confounding artifacts observed at the tip of the renal papilla may also be problematic for the pathologist. An uncommon artifact involving tinctorial alteration and rarefaction affecting the papillary tip of the rat kidney is described here and differentiated from treatment induced lesions of renal papillary necrosis.

Use of Severity Grades to Characterize Histopathologic Changes.

The severity grade is an important component of a histopathologic diagnosis in a nonclinical toxicity study that helps distinguish treatment-related effects from background findings and aids in determining adverse dose levels during hazard characterization. Severity grades should be assigned based only on the extent (i.e., amount and complexity) of the morphologic change in the examined tissue section(s) and be clearly defined in the pathology report for critical lesions impacting study interpretation. However, the level of detail provided and criteria by which severity grades are assigned can vary, which can lead to inappropriate comparisons and confusion when evaluating pathology results. To help address this issue, a Working Group of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology's Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee was formed to provide a "points to consider" article on the assignment and application of pathology severity grades. Overall, the Working Group supports greater transparency and consistency in the reporting of grading scales and provides recommendations to improve selection of diagnoses requiring more detailed severity criteria. This information should enhance the overall understanding by toxicologic pathologists, toxicologists, and regulatory reviewers of pathology findings and thereby improve effective communication in regulatory submissions.

Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee: Recommended ("Best") Practices for Determining, Communicating, and Using Adverse Effect Data from Nonclinical Studies.

Recommendations (best practices) are provided by the Society of Toxicologic Pathology's Adversity Working Group for making consistent interpretations of test article-related effects as "adverse" and assigning a "no observed adverse effect level" (NOAEL) in nonclinical toxicity studies. Adverse is a term indicating "harm" to the test animal, while nonadverse indicates lack of harm. Adverse findings in the study reports should be defined in relation to effects on the test species used and within the context of the given study. Test article-related effects should be described on their own merits, and decisions to consider them as adverse or nonadverse should be justified. Related effects may be discussed together; in particular, markers of toxicity that are not in and of themselves adverse ideally should be discussed in conjunction with the causal toxicity to determine adversity. Adverse findings should be identified in subreports (clinical data, pathology data, etc.) if sufficient information is available, and/or in the final study report as individual or grouped findings, but study NOAELs should be established at the level of the overall study report. Interpretations such as "not biologically relevant" or "not toxicologically important" should be avoided unless defined and supported by scientific rationale. Decisions defining adverse findings and the NOAEL in final study reports should combine the expertise of all contributing scientific disciplines. Where possible, use of NOAELs in data tables should be linked to explanatory text that places them in context. Ideally, in nonclinical summary documents, NOAELs from multiple studies are considered together in defining the most important adverse responses in the most sensitive species. These responses are then considered along with an understanding of their likely mechanisms, as well as other information such as variability in species sensitivity, comparative pathology, reversibility and progression, kinetics, and metabolism of the test substance to help assess human risk.

Characterizing "Adversity" of Pathology Findings in Nonclinical Toxicity Studies: Results from the 4th ESTP International Expert Workshop.

The identification of adverse health effects has a central role in the development and risk/safety assessment of chemical entities and pharmaceuticals. There is currently a need for better alignment regarding how nonclinical adversity is determined and characterized. The European Society of Toxicologic Pathology (ESTP) therefore coordinated a workshop to review available definitions of adversity, weigh determining and qualifying factors of adversity based on case examples, and recommend a practical approach to define and characterize adversity in toxicology reports, to serve as a valuable prerequisite for future organ- or lesion-specific workshops planned by the ESTP.

A brief overview of the 33rd Annual STP Symposium on the translational pathology: relevance of toxicologic pathology to human health.

The 33rd Society of Toxicologic Pathology's Annual Symposium focused on translational science and the relevance of toxicologic pathology to human health. Toxicologic pathologists work in diverse settings studying changes elicited by pharmacological, chemical, and environmental agents and factors that modify these responses. Regardless of the work setting, society members are dedicated to the integration of toxicologic pathology into hazard identification, risk assessment, and risk communication regarding human and animal exposure to potentially toxic substances. Toxicologic pathologists routinely face not only questions regarding pathological changes related to compound exposure but also questions concerning what translational relevance those lesions and exposures have to a human population or organ system. This symposium provided a basis for the membership to understand the variety of roles the toxicologic pathologist plays in translational science, where our gaps in translational science are, and how we can move forward to better address the challenges in the field translational science in order to continue to positively impact human health.

Regulatory Forum Opinion Piece*: The Value of Publishing Negative Scientific Study Data.

Historically it has been easier to publish positive scientific results than negative data not supporting the research hypothesis. This appears to be increasing, with fewer negative studies appearing in the literature across many disciplines. Failure to recognize the value of negative results has important implications for the toxicology community. Implications include perpetuating scientific fields based upon selective or occasionally erroneous, positive results. One example is decreased vaccination rates and increased measles infections that can lead to childhood mortality following one erroneous positive study linking vaccination to adverse effects despite multiple negative studies. Publication of negative data that challenges existing paradigms enhances progress by stopping further investment in scientifically barren topics, decreases the use of animals, and focuses research in more fruitful areas. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) publishes both positive and negative rodent data. Retrospective analysis of the NTP database has provided insights on the carcinogenic process and in the gradual acceptance of using fewer animals in safety studies. This article proposes that careful publication of both positive and negative data can enhance product safety assessment, add robustness to safety determinations in the regulatory decision-making process, and should be actively encouraged by those determining journal editorial policy.

Impact of Pathologists and Evaluation Methods on Performance Assessment of the Kidney Injury Biomarker, Kim-1.

Attempts to characterize and formally qualify biomarkers for regulatory purposes have raised questions about how histological and histopathological methods impact the evaluation of biomarker performance. A group of pathologists was asked to analyze digitized images prepared from rodent kidney injury experiments in studies designed to investigate sources of variability in histopathology evaluations. Study A maximized variability by using samples from diverse studies and providing minimal guidance, contextual information, or opportunities for pathologist interaction. Study B was designed to limit interpathologist variability by using more uniform image sets from different locations within the same kidneys and allowing pathologist selected interactions to discuss and identify the location and injury to be evaluated but without providing a lexicon or peer review. Results from this study suggest that differences between pathologists and across models of disease are the largest sources of variability in evaluations and that blind evaluations do not generally make a significant difference. Results of this study generally align with recommendations from both industry and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and should inform future studies examining the effects of common lexicons and scoring criteria, peer review, and blind evaluations in the context of biomarker performance assessment.

Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Review: Review of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidance on the GLP Requirements for Peer Review of Histopathology.

In 2014, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) issued guidance no. 16, Guidance on the GLP Requirements for Peer Review of Histopathology. The stated purpose of the guidance document is "to provide guidance to pathologists, test facility management, study directors and quality assurance personnel on how the peer review of histopathology should be planned, managed, documented, and reported in order to meet Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) expectations and requirements." On behalf of and in collaboration with the global societies of toxicologic pathology, the Society of Toxicologic Pathology initiated a review of OECD guidance no. 16. The objectives of this review are to provide a unified interpretation of the guidance, to recommend compliant processes for organizations to implement, and to avoid inconsistent process adaptations across the industry. This review of the guidance document is the product of a global collaboration with other societies of toxicologic pathology and provides a section-by-section international consensus view and interpretation of the OECD guidance on peer review.

Immunomodulatory effect of zidovudine (ZDV) on cytotoxic T lymphocytes previously exposed to ZDV.

In a previous study, zidovudine (ZDV) was shown to cause a concentration-dependent inhibition of antigen-specific cytotoxic T-lymphocyte (CTL) clonal expansion (S. Francke, C. G. Orosz, K. A. Hayes, and L. E. Mathes, Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 44:1900-1905, 2000). However, this suppressive effect was lost if exposure to ZDV was delayed for 24 to 48 h during the antigen sensitization period, suggesting that antigen-primed CTL may be less susceptible than naive T lymphocytes to the suppressive effects of ZDV. The present study was undertaken to determine if naive T lymphocytes were more sensitive to the suppressive effects of ZDV than T lymphocytes previously exposed to antigen. The 50% inhibitory concentration (IC(50)) values of ZDV were determined on naive and antigen-primed T-cell responses in an alloantigen system. Lymphocyte cultures with continuous antigen exposure (double prime) were more resistant to ZDV suppression (IC(50) = 316 micro M) than were naive lymphocytes (IC(50) = 87.5 micro M). Interestingly, lymphocytes that were antigen primed but deprived of antigen during the final 7 days of culture (prime/hold) were exquisitely sensitive to ZDV suppression (IC(50) = 29.3 micro M). The addition of 80 micro M ZDV during the initial priming of the single-prime (prime/hold) and double-prime cultures did not select for a more drug-resistant cell population. The differences in ZDV sensitivities are likely a reflection of the physiological properties of the lymphocytes related to their activation state.