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.

The novel self-amplifying mRNA (SAM) technology for vaccines consists of an engineered replication-deficient alphavirus genome encoding an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and the gene of the target antigen. To validate the concept, the rabies glycoprotein G was chosen as antigen. The delivery system for this vaccine was a cationic nanoemulsion.To characterize the local tolerance, potential systemic toxicity and biodistribution of this vaccine, two nonclinical studies were performed. In the repeated dose toxicity study, the SAM vaccine was administered intramuscularly to rats on four occasions at two-week intervals followed by a four-week recovery period. SAM-related changes consisted of a transient increase in neutrophil count, alpha-2-macroglobulin and fibrinogen levels. Transient aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase increases were also noted in females only. At necropsy, observations related to the elicited inflammatory reaction, such as enlargement of the draining lymph nodes were observed that were almost fully reversible by the end of the recovery period.In the biodistribution study, rats received a single intramuscular injection of SAM vaccine and then were followed until Day 60. Rabies RNA was found at the injection sites and in the draining lymph nodes one day after administration, then generally decreased in these tissues but remained detectable up to Day 60. Rabies RNA was also transiently found in blood, lungs, spleen and liver. No microscopic changes in the brain and spinal cord were recorded.In conclusion, these results showed that the rabies SAM vaccine was well-tolerated by the animals and supported the clinical development program.

The Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) explored current institutional practices for selecting between non-blinded vs. blinded histopathologic evaluation during Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)-compliant, regulatory-type animal toxicity studies using a multi-question survey and STP-wide discussion at the 2019 STP annual meeting. Survey responses were received from 107 individuals representing 87 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 elected 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 a formal blinding (i.e., using slides with coded labels) is employed, using simple statements without detailed methodology in the Study Protocol (or an amendment) and/or pathology report. In general, blinding is an inappropriate strategy for the histopathologic evaluation during pathology peer reviews of GLP-compliant 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]

The Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) and American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology (ASCVP) convened a Clinical Pathology in Carcinogenicity Studies Working Group to recommend best practices for inclusion of clinical pathology testing in carcinogenicity studies. Regulatory guidance documents and literature were reviewed, and veterinary pathologists from North America, Japan, and Europe were surveyed regarding current practices, perceived value, and recommendations for clinical pathology testing in carcinogenicity studies. For two-year rodent carcinogenicity studies, the Working Group recommends that clinical pathology testing be limited to collection of blood smears at scheduled and unscheduled sacrifices to be examined only if indicated to aid in the diagnosis of possible hematopoietic neoplasia following histopathologic evaluation. Additional clinical pathology testing is most appropriately used to address specific issues from prior toxicity studies or known test article–related class effects. Inadequate data were available to make a recommendation concerning clinical pathology testing for alternative six-month carcinogenicity assays using genetically modified mice, although the Working Group suggests that it may be appropriate to use the same approach as for two-year carcinogenicity studies since the study goal is the same.

Fischer 344 rats (60/sex/group) were given daily subcutaneous injections of recombinant human parathyroid hormone (PTH)(1-34) for 2 years at doses of 0, 5, 30, or 75 mug/kg. Treatment caused substantial increases in bone mass consistent with the known pharmacologic effects of once-daily administration. As determined by quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and histomorphometry, bone mass was markedly increased. Substantial new bone formation resulted in a large decrease in marrow space accompanied by altered bone architecture. Bone proliferative lesions were observed in all PTH(1-34)-treated groups. Osteosarcoma occurred in 3, 21, and 31 male rats and in 4, 12, and 23 female rats in the 5-, 30-, and 75-mug/kg treatment groups, respectively. Focal osteoblast hyperplasia, osteoma, and osteoblastoma were much less frequent. Although the specific cellular or molecular mechanisms responsible for the rat bone tumors have not been fully elucidated, the data suggest that these lesions resulted from the long duration of treatment and the exaggerated pharmacologic response of the rat skeleton to daily treatment with PTH(1-34). Important differences between the rat study and clinical use in adult humans suggest that the increased incidence of bone neoplasia in rats treated for 2 years is likely not predictive of an increased risk of bone cancer in skeletally mature adult humans being given PTH(1-34) for a limited period of time in the treatment of osteoporosis.