Topic of histopathology blinding in nonclinical safety biomarker qualification studies

Lack of synergistic nephrotoxicity between vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam in a rat model and a confirmatory cellular model

BACKGROUND

Vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam are reported in clinical studies to increase acute kidney injury (AKI). However, no clinical study has demonstrated synergistic toxicity, only that serum creatinine increases.

OBJECTIVES

To clarify the potential for synergistic toxicity between vancomycin, piperacillin/tazobactam and vancomycin + piperacillin/tazobactam treatments by quantifying kidney injury in a translational rat model of AKI and using cell studies.

METHODS

(i) Male Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 32) received saline, vancomycin 150 mg/kg/day intravenously, piperacillin/tazobactam 1400 mg/kg/day intraperitoneally or vancomycin + piperacillin/tazobactam for 3 days. Urinary biomarkers and histopathology were analysed. (ii) Cellular injury was assessed in NRK-52E cells using alamarBlue®.

RESULTS

Urinary output increased from Day -1 to Day 1 with vancomycin but only after Day 2 for vancomycin + piperacillin/tazobactam-treated rats. Plasma creatinine was elevated from baseline with vancomycin by Day 2 and only by Day 4 for vancomycin + piperacillin/tazobactam. Urinary KIM-1 and clusterin were increased with vancomycin from Day 1 versus controls (P < 0.001) and only on Day 3 with vancomycin + piperacillin/tazobactam (P < 0.001, KIM-1; P < 0.05, clusterin). The histopathology injury score was elevated only in the vancomycin group when compared with piperacillin/tazobactam as a control (P = 0.04) and generally not so with vancomycin + piperacillin/tazobactam. In NRK-52E cells, vancomycin induced cell death with high doses (IC50 48.76 mg/mL) but piperacillin/tazobactam did not, and vancomycin + piperacillin/tazobactam was similar to vancomycin.

CONCLUSIONS

All groups treated with vancomycin demonstrated AKI; however, vancomycin + piperacillin/tazobactam was not worse than vancomycin. Histopathology suggested that piperacillin/tazobactam did not worsen vancomycin-induced AKI and may even be protective.

Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors

BACKGROUND

We wanted to evaluate the impact of nonblinded outcome assessors on estimated treatment effects in time-to-event trials.

METHODS

Systematic review of randomized clinical trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors of the same time-to-event outcome. Two authors agreed on inclusion of trials and outcomes. We compared hazard ratios based on nonblinded and blinded assessments. A ratio of hazard ratios (RHR)<1 indicated that nonblinded assessors generated more optimistic effect estimates. We pooled RHRs with inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We included 18 trials. Eleven trials (1969 patients) with subjective outcomes provided hazard ratios, RHR 0.88 (0.69 to 1.12), (I2=44%, P=0.06), but unconditional pooling was problematic because of qualitative heterogeneity. Four atypical cytomegalovirus retinitis trials compared experimental oral administration with control intravenous administration of the same drug, resulting in bias favouring the control intervention, RHR 1.33 (0.98 to 1.82). Seven trials of cytomegalovirus retinitis, tibial fracture and multiple sclerosis compared experimental interventions with standard control interventions, e.g. placebo, no-treatment or active control, resulting in bias favouring the experimental intervention, RHR 0.73 (0.57 to 0.93), indicating an average exaggeration of nonblinded hazard ratios by 27% (7% to 43%).

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of blinded outcome assessors in randomized trials with subjective time-to-event outcomes causes high risk of observer bias. Nonblinded outcome assessors typically favour the experimental intervention, exaggerating the hazard ratio by an average of approximately 27%; but in special situations, nonblinded outcome assessors favour control interventions, inducing a comparable degree of observer bias in the reversed direction.

Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are commonly done without blinded outcome assessors despite the risk of bias. We wanted to evaluate the effect of nonblinded outcome assessment on estimated effects in randomized clinical trials with outcomes that involved subjective measurement scales.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessment of the same measurement scale outcome. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, HighWire Press and Google Scholar for relevant studies. Two investigators agreed on the inclusion of trials and the outcome scale. For each trial, we calculated the difference in effect size (i.e., standardized mean difference between nonblinded and blinded assessments). A difference in effect size of less than 0 suggested that nonblinded assessors generated more optimistic estimates of effect. We pooled the differences in effect size using inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis and used metaregression to identify potential reasons for variation.

RESULTS

We included 24 trials in our review. The main meta-analysis included 16 trials (involving 2854 patients) with subjective outcomes. The estimated treatment effect was more beneficial when based on nonblinded assessors (pooled difference in effect size -0.23 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.40 to -0.06]). In relative terms, nonblinded assessors exaggerated the pooled effect size by 68% (95% CI 14% to 230%). Heterogeneity was moderate (I(2) = 46%, p = 0.02) and unexplained by metaregression.

INTERPRETATION

We provide empirical evidence for observer bias in randomized clinical trials with subjective measurement scale outcomes. A failure to blind assessors of outcomes in such trials results in a high risk of substantial bias.

Recommendations for the evaluation of pathology data in nonclinical safety biomarker qualification studies

A set of best practices for the conduct of histopathology evaluation in nonclinical safety studies was endorsed by the Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) in 2004. These best practices indicate that the study pathologist should have knowledge of the treatment group and access to all available study-related data for the animal from which the tissue was obtained. A new set of best practices for the conduct of histopathology review for safety biomarker qualification for nonclinical studies has been endorsed by the STP and is summarized in this document. These best practices are generally similar to those for nonclinical safety studies, specifically that the pathologist be "unblinded" or have access to study data. Although histopathology evaluation in biomarker qualification studies must be performed without knowledge of novel biomarker data, the study pathologist(s) should be involved in the attendant meta-analyses of these data. Blinded evaluation is an experimental tool in biomarker qualification studies that is appropriate only when well-defined criteria for specific histopathologic findings are identified prior to blinded review. Additionally, this paper also considers the management of bias, the use of a tiered evaluation approach, the importance of using qualified pathologists and standard reporting, and the management of spontaneous findings.

Biomarkers of Collecting Duct Injury in Han-Wistar and Sprague-Dawley Rats Treated with N-Phenylanthranilic Acid

N-phenylanthranilic acid is a chloride channel blocker that causes renal papillary necrosis in rats. Studies were conducted in two strains of male rats to evaluate novel biomarkers of nephrotoxicity. Han-Wistar rats were given daily oral doses of 50, 350, or up to 700 mg/kg/day of NPAA, and Sprague-Dawley rats were given 50 or 400 mg/kg/day of NPAA. Rats were euthanized on days 8 and 15. The candidate kidney injury biomarkers renal papillary antigen-1 (RPA-1, for collecting duct injury), clusterin (for general kidney injury), α-glutathione-S-transferase (a proximal tubular marker), and µ-glutathione-S-transferase (a distal tubular marker) were measured in urine by enzyme immunoassay. Characteristic degeneration and necrosis of the collecting duct and renal papilla were observed in Han-Wistar rats at the high dose on day 8 and at the mid and high doses on day 15, and in Sprague-Dawley rats given the high dose on days 8 and 15. Increases in urinary RPA-1, and to a lesser extent urine clusterin, were generally associated with the presence of collecting duct injury and were more sensitive than BUN and serum creatinine. On the other hand, decreases in α-glutathione-S-transferase without proximal tubule lesions in both strains and decreases in µ-glutathione-S-transferase in Sprague-Dawley rats only were not associated with morphological proximal or distal tubule abnormalities, so both were of less utility. It was concluded that RPA-1 is a new biomarker with utility in the detection of collecting duct injury in papillary necrosis in male rats.

New pathway for qualification of novel methodologies in the European Medicines Agency

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) qualification process is a new, voluntary, scientific pathway leading to either a Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) opinion or a Scientific Advice on innovative methods or drug development tools: (i) CHMP Qualification Opinion on the acceptability of a specific use of the proposed method, based on the assessment of submitted data and (ii) CHMP Qualification Advice on future protocols and methods for further method development towards qualification, based on the evaluation of the scientific rationale and on preliminary data submitted. The qualification procedure was established as a response to the drug development bottlenecks and inefficiencies, but also to the availability of new methodologies, not yet integrated in the drug development and clinical management paradigm. The qualification process addresses innovative methods developed by consortia, networks, public/private partnerships, learned societies or pharmaceutical industry. It is expected to facilitate communication between the scientific community and the regulators and to address challenges with the development and use of medicines. In this article, we will present an overview of the process and the up to now scientific advice working party (SAWP) experience.