Principles for Assessing Adversity in Toxicologic Clinical Pathology.

There is limited direction in the literature or regulatory guidance on determination of adversity for clinical pathology (CP) biomarkers in preclinical safety studies. Toxicologic clinical pathologists representing the American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology-Regulatory Affairs Committee and Society of Toxicologic Pathology-Clinical Pathology Interest Group identified principles, overall approach, and unique considerations for assessing adversity in CP data interpretation to provide a consensus opinion. Emphasized is the need for pathophysiologic context and a weight-of-evidence approach. Most CP biomarkers do not have the potential to be adverse in isolation, regardless of magnitude of change. Rather, they quantify or describe the impact of effects, provide adjunct or supportive information regarding a process or pathogenesis, and provide translational biomarkers of effect. Most often, CP changes are part of a constellation of findings that collectively are adverse. Thus, most CP changes must be interpreted in conjunction with other study findings and require contextual and integrative interpretation. Exceptions include critical CP changes without correlates that indicate a health risk in the tested species. Overall, CP changes should not be interpreted in isolation and their adversity is best addressed with an integrated approach.

STP Best Practices for Evaluating Clinical Pathology in Pharmaceutical Recovery Studies.

The Society of Toxicologic Pathology formed a working group in collaboration with the American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology to provide recommendations for the appropriate inclusion of clinical pathology evaluation in recovery arms of nonclinical toxicity studies but not on when to perform recovery studies. Evaluation of the recovery of clinical pathology findings is not required routinely but provides useful information on risk assessment in nonclinical toxicity studies and is recommended when the ability of the organ to recover is uncertain. The study design generally requires inclusion of concurrent controls to separate procedure-related changes from test article-related changes, but return of clinical pathology values toward baseline may be sufficient in some cases. Evaluation of either a select or full panel of standard hematology, coagulation, and serum and urine chemistry biomarkers can be scientifically justified. It is also acceptable to redesignate dosing phase animals to the recovery phase or vice versa to optimize data interpretation. Assessment of delayed toxicity during the recovery phase is not required but may be appropriate in development programs with unique concerns. Evaluation of the recovery of clinical pathology data for vaccine development is required and, for efficacy markers, is recommended if it furthers pharmacologic understanding.