The transferability from rat subacute 4-week oral toxicity study to translational research exemplified by two pharmaceutical immunosuppressants and two environmental pollutants with immunomodulating properties

Considerations for the Identification and Conveyance of Clinical Pathology Findings in Preclinical Toxicity Studies: Results From the 9th ESTP International Expert Workshop

The European Society of Toxicologic Pathology (ESTP) organized a panel of 24 international experts from many fields of toxicologic clinical pathology (e.g., industry, academia, and regulatory) that came together in 2021 to align the use of terminology to convey the importance of clinical pathology findings in preclinical toxicity studies. An additional goal consisted of how to identify important findings in standard and nonstandard clinical pathology associated endpoints. This manuscript summarizes the information and opinions discussed and shared at the ninth ESTP International Expert Workshop, April 5 to 6, 2022. In addition to terminology usage, the workshop considered topics related to the identification and conveyance of the importance of test item-related findings. These topics included sources of variability, comparators, statistics, reporting, correlations to other study data, nonstandard biomarkers, indirect/secondary findings, and an overall weight-of-evidence approach.

Integrated analysis of toxicity data of two pharmaceutical immunosuppressants and two environmental pollutants with immunomodulating properties to improve the understanding of side effects-A toxicopathologist׳s view

Data in a toxicity test are evaluated generally per parameter. Information on the response per animal in addition to per parameter can improve the evaluation of the results. The results from the six studies in rats, described in the paper by Kemmerling, J., Fehlert, E., Rühl-Fehlert, C., Kuper, C.F., Stropp, G., Vogels, J., Krul, C., Vohr, H.-W., 2015. The transferability from rat subacute 4-week oral toxicity study to translational research exemplified by two pharmaceutical immunosuppressants and two environmental pollutants with immunomodulating properties (In this issue), have been subjected to principal component analysis (PCA) and principal component discriminant analysis (PC-DA). The two pharmaceuticals azathioprine (AZA) and cyclosporine A (CSA) and the two environmental pollutants hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) all modulate the immune system, albeit that their mode of immunomodulation is quite diverse. PCA illustrated the similarities between the two independent studies with AZA (AZA1 and AZA2) and CSA (CSA1 and CSA2). The PC-DA on data of the AZA2 study did not increase substantially the information on dose levels. In general, the no-effect levels were lower upon single parameter analysis than indicated by the distances between the dose groups in the PCA. This was mostly due to the expert judgment in the single parameter evaluation, which took into account outstanding pathology in only one or two animals. The PCA plots did not reveal sex-related differences in sensitivity, but the key pathology for males and females differed. The observed variability in some of the control groups was largely a peripheral blood effect. Most importantly, PCA analysis identified several animals outside the 95% confidence limit indicating high-responders; also low-to-non-responders were identified. The key pathology enhanced the understanding of the response of the animals to the four model compounds.