Toxicologic Pathology Forum*: Opinion on Qualitative Severity Descriptors to Express Magnitude of Changes in Clinical Pathology Endpoints in Nonclinical Toxicity Studies

Clinical pathology endpoints are routinely assessed in nonclinical toxicity studies and the magnitude of test article-related changes is frequently expressed using quantitative and/or qualitative severity descriptors. Quantitative descriptors (ie, percent or fold change) are easily calculated to express numerical magnitude of a change but may not adequately convey biological relevance. A specific quantitative magnitude may be associated with vastly different levels of pathophysiologic relevance depending on several factors, including the nature of the endpoint, the animal species/strain, and the magnitude and direction of change. Qualitative descriptors (eg, minimal and mild) offer a succinct way to provide additional context to the pathophysiologic relevance but are more challenging to ascribe to a change. The assignment of qualitative descriptors often requires a subjective, comprehensive, and multifaceted approach using various factors in addition to numerical calculation. Because of the subjectivity involved, the qualitative severity descriptor assigned to a specific change may differ among clinical pathology endpoints, species/strain, contributing scientists, and studies/programs. Quantitative and qualitative severity descriptors may provide complementary information and may be used individually or in combination. This opinion piece primarily explains the process and discusses caveats and various factors taken into consideration by clinical pathologists while ascribing qualitative severity descriptors.

Toxicologic Pathology Forum*: Opinion on Assessing and Communicating Adversity for Implantable Medical Devices

Medical devices are a product class encompassing many materials and intended uses. While adversity determination is a key part of nonclinical safety assessments, relatively little has been published about the unique challenges encountered when determining adversity for implantable medical devices. The current paper uses the Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP)'s "Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Recommended ('Best') Practices for Determining, Communicating, and Using Adverse Effect Data from Nonclinical Studies," which were crafted for conventional bio/pharmaceutical products (small and large molecules, cell and gene therapies, etc), as a framework for making adversity decisions for medical devices. Some best principles are directly translatable to medical devices: (1) adversity indicates harm to the animal; (2) effects should be assessed on their merits without speculation regarding future or unmeasured implications; (3) adversity decisions apply only to the test species under the specific conditions of the nonclinical study; and (4) adversity decisions and supporting evidence should be clearly stated in reports. However, unique considerations also apply for evaluating implanted medical devices, including testing of multiple articles in the same animal and the unavoidable tissue trauma during device implantation. This opinion piece offers suggestions for applying previously published STP best practice recommendations for assigning adversity to implantable medical devices.

Virtual Control Groups in Non-clinical Toxicity Studies: Impacts on Toxicologic Clinical Pathology Data Interpretation

One of the emerging concepts on the reduction of animal use in non-clinical studies is the use of virtual control group (VCG) to replace concurrent control group (CCG). The VCG involves the generation of a control data from historical control data to match a specific study design. This review focuses on two recently published proof-of-concept (POC) studies conducted in rats. One major issue that was consistently seen across these POC studies was the non-reproducibility of some quantitative endpoints between the CCG and the VCG, with clinical pathology parameters being the most affected. The inconsistencies observed with the clinical pathology parameters when using VCGs may lead to: (1) misconception about the accuracy and sensitivity of traditional clinical pathology biomarkers and its implications on safety monitoring in the clinic; (2) inability to correctly identify and characterize organ dysfunctions; (3) interference with the weight-of-evidence approach used in identifying hazards in toxicologic clinical pathology and toxicology studies at large; and (4) wrong interpretations and data reproducibility issues. Other alternatives to reduce animal use in toxicology studies are also discussed including blood microsampling for toxicokinetics, scientifically justified use of recovery animals, and appropriate use and continuous investments in new alternative methods.

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.

Translation of nonclinical to clinical safety findings for 27 biotherapeutics

Human adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and in vivo nonclinical adverse and nonadverse findings, were identified in 27 biotherapeutic programs and placed into organ categories to determine translation. The sensitivity of detecting human ADRs was 30.8% with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 53.3% for nonclinical adverse findings; sensitivity increased to 67.3% and PPV fell to 35.0% when including nonadverse findings. Nonclinical findings were associated with a greater likelihood of a human ADR in that organ category, especially for adverse findings [positive likelihood ratio (LR+) >10 (lower 95% confidence interval [CI] of >5)]. The specificity and negative predictive value (NPV) were very high (>85%). A lack of nonclinical findings in an organ category was associated with a lower likelihood of a human ADR in that organ category. About 40-50% of human ADRs and nonclinical adverse findings, and about 30% of nonclinical nonadverse findings, were attributed to pharmacology. Slightly more than half of the human ADRs with a translating nonclinical finding had findings in animals that could be considered very similar. Overall, 38% of nonclinical findings translated to a human ADR at the organ category level. When nonclinical findings did not translate to humans, the cause was usually higher exposures or longer dosing in animals. All programs with human ADRs attributed to immunogenicity also had nonclinical adverse or nonadverse findings related to immunogenicity. Overall, nonclinical adverse and nonadverse findings were useful in predicting human ADRs, especially at an organ category level, and the majority of human ADRs were predicted by nonclinical toxicity studies.

Toxicologic Pathology Forum: Considerations Regarding Determination of Adversity for Immunopathology Findings in Nonclinical Toxicology Studies with Immune-Modulating Therapeutics

The evaluation of changes in the immune system serves to determine the efficacy and potential immunotoxicologic effects of new products under development. Toxicologic pathologists play critical roles in identifying immune system changes that drive the immunosafety determination. Standard pathology evaluations of therapies and chemicals remain similar; however, biopharmaceutical therapies have moved from simply affecting the immune system to being specifically developed to modify the immune system, which can impact interpretation. Recent explosive growth in immunomodulatory therapies presents a challenge to the toxicologic pathologist, toxicologist, and regulatory reviewer in terms of evaluating the clinical relevance and potential adversity of immune system changes. Beyond the recognition of such changes, there is an increasing expectation to evaluate, describe, and interpret how therapies affect complex immune system pathways for both immunomodulatory therapies and non-immunomodulatory drugs with off-target immunotoxic effects. In this opinion piece, considerations regarding immune system evaluation, the current landscape of immunomodulatory therapies, a brief description of immunotoxicologic (and immunopathologic) endpoints, the importance of integrating such immunosafety data, and relevance to adversity determination are discussed. Importantly, we describe how the current paradigm of determining adversity for immune system changes may be challenging or insufficient and propose a harmonized and flexible approach for assessing adversity.

Practical Considerations in Determining Adversity and the No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level (NOAEL) in Nonclinical Safety Studies: Challenges, Perspectives and Case Studies

Determining the adverse nature of findings from nonclinical safety studies often poses a challenge for the key stakeholders responsible for interpreting the results of definitive toxicity studies in support of pharmaceutical product development. Although there are instances in which responses to treatment clearly indicate intolerability or tissue injury associated with dysfunction; in practice, more often there is uncertainty in characterizing an effect of drug treatment as adverse or not. This is due to the inherent variability in responses of biological test systems to toxicological insults, leaving the ultimate analyses of adversity to individual interpretation and subjectivity. This article is a follow-up to the workshop entitled, "Adverse or Not Adverse?: Thinking process behind adversity determination during nonclinical drug development," conducted at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology, March 2019 in Baltimore, MD. In this paper, we further discuss and incorporate the perspectives of authors representing different roles, such as Study Director, Study Pathologist, Pharmacology/Toxicology Reviewer (U.S. Food and Drug Administration), and Sponsor in the determination and use of adversity. We also present a practical stepwise approach as an aid in this assessment, and further apply these principles to discuss 10 case studies with different therapeutic modalities and unique challenges.

Selected Aspects of Ocular Toxicity Studies With a Focus on High-Quality Pathology Reports: A Pathology/Toxicology Consultant's Perspective

Ocular toxicity studies are the bedrock of nonclinical ocular drug and drug-device development, and there has been an evolution in experience, technologies, and challenges to address that ensures safe clinical trials and marketing authorization. The expectations of a well-designed ocular toxicity study and the generation of a coherent, integrative ocular toxicology report and subreports are high, and this article provides a pathology/toxicology consultant's perspective on achieving that goal. The first objective is to cover selected aspects of study designs for ocular toxicity studies including considerations for contract research organization selection, minipig species selection, unilateral versus bilateral dosing, and in-life parameters based on fit-for-purpose study objectives. The main objective is a focus on a high-quality ocular pathology report that includes ocular histology procedures to meet regulatory expectations and a report narrative and tables that correlate microscopic findings with key ophthalmic findings and presents a clear interpretation of test article-, vehicle-, and procedure-related ocular and extraocular findings with identification of adversity and a pathology peer review. The last objective covers considerations for a high-quality ophthalmology report, which in concert with a high-quality pathology report, will pave the way for a best quality toxicology report for an ocular toxicity study.

Perspective on Adversity in Toxicology Evaluations

Determining adversity of effects in toxicology studies continues to pose a dilemma to practicing toxicologists and pathologists. How this determination is made may follow either a focused or broad approach to assessing the study data. The choice of which approach is best is dependent on a variety of factors. Therefore, we present a philosophical perspective on the determination of adversity across toxicology studies that may be applied in inhalation studies and those conducted by other routes of exposure.

Strategies and Recommendations for Using a Data-Driven and Risk-Based Approach in the Selection of First-in-Human Starting Dose: An International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development (IQ) Assessment

Various approaches to first-in-human (FIH) starting dose selection for new molecular entities (NMEs) are designed to minimize risk to trial subjects. One approach uses the minimum anticipated biological effect level (MABEL), which is a conservative method intended to maximize subject safety and designed primarily for NMEs having high perceived safety risks. However, there is concern that the MABEL approach is being inappropriately used for lower risk molecules with negative impacts on drug development and time to patient access. In addition, ambiguity exists in how MABEL is defined and the methods used to determine it. The International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development convened a working group to understand current use of MABEL and its impact on FIH starting dose selection, and to make recommendations for FIH dose selection going forward. An industry-wide survey suggested the achieved or estimated maximum tolerated dose, efficacious dose, or recommended phase II dose was > 100-fold higher than the MABEL-based starting dose for approximately one third of NMEs, including trials in patients. A decision tree and key risk factor table were developed to provide a consistent, data driven-based, and risk-based approach for selecting FIH starting doses.

Interpretative considerations for clinical pathology findings in nonclinical toxicology studies

The interpretation of clinical pathology results from nonclinical safety studies is a fundamental component in hazard identification of new drug candidates. The ever-increasing complexity of nonclinical safety studies and sophistication of modern analytical methods have made the interpretation of clinical pathology information by a highly trained subject matter expert imperative. Certain interpretive techniques are particularly effective in the identification and characterization of clinical pathology effects. The purpose of this manuscript is to provide an overview of contemporary interpretive practices for clinical pathology results and to provide nonbinding recommendations aimed at improving consistency, quality, and overall value of clinical pathology interpretations generated in support of nonclinical toxicology studies.

Practical Strategies for Navigating Toxicologic Pathology in One's Early Career…and Beyond!

The toxicologic pathologist plays a vital role in the scientific community, using their unique blend of diagnostic and investigative skills to advance biomedical research, public health, drug discovery, or regulatory practices. But what exactly do toxicologic pathologists contribute? Where do these specialized professionals work? How can toxicologic pathologists maximize their efficiency and potential? To enlighten students and trainees, as well as early- or mid-career toxicologic pathologists, or even those approaching retirement, the Career Development and Outreach Committee of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) sponsored a career development workshop entitled "Practical Strategies for Navigating Toxicologic Pathology in One's Early Career…and Beyond!" in conjunction with the STP 37th annual symposium. The workshop featured toxicologic pathologists from contract research organizations and the pharmaceutical industry, who provided their perspectives on career preparation, evolving veterinary pathologist roles within various sectors of toxicologic pathology, the fundamentals of safety assessment, logistics of projects involving good laboratory practices, tools for effective interpretation and communication of anatomic and clinical pathology results, and a recap of scientific resources available to support the toxicologic pathologist in his or her journey. This article provides brief summaries of the talks presented during this career development workshop.