The Society of Toxicologic Pathology convened a working group to evaluate current practices regarding organ weights in toxicology studies. A survey was distributed to pharmaceutical, veterinary, chemical, food/nutritional and consumer product companies in Europe, North America, and Japan. Responses were compiled to identify organs routinely weighed for various study types in rodent and non-rodent species, compare methods of organ weighing, provide perspectives on the value of organ weights and identify the scientist(s) responsible for organ weight data interpretation. Data were evaluated as a whole as well as by industry type and geographic location. Regulatory guidance documents describing organ weighing practices are generally available, however, they differ somewhat dependent on industry type and regulatory agency. While questionnaire respondents unanimously stated that organ weights were a good screening tool to identify treatment-related effects, opinions varied as to which organ weights are most valuable. The liver, kidneys, and testes were commonly weighed and most often considered useful by most respondents. Other organs that break were commonly weighed included brain, adrenal glands, ovaries, thyroid glands, uterus, heart, and spleen. Lungs, lymph nodes, and other sex organs were weighed infrequently in routine studies, but were often weighed in specialized studies such as inhalation, immunotoxicity, and reproduction studies. Organ-to-body weight ratios were commonly calculated and were considered more useful when body weights were affected. Organ to brain weight ratios were calculated by most North American companies, but rarely according to respondents representing veterinary product or European companies. Statistical analyses were generally performed by most respondents. Pathologists performed interpretation of organ weight data for the majority of the industries.

The evaluation of organ weights in toxicology studies is an integral component in the assessment of pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and medical devices. The Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) has created recommendations for weighing organs in GLP general toxicology studies lasting from 7 days to 1 year. The STP recommends that liver, heart, kidneys, brain, testes, and adrenal glands be weighed in all multidose general toxicology studies. Thyroid gland and pituitary gland weights are recommended for all species except mice. Spleen and thymus should be weighed in rodent studies and may be weighed in non-rodent studies. Weighing of reproductive organs is most valuable in sexually mature animals. Variability in age, sexual maturity, and stage of cycle in non-rodents and reproductive senescence in female rodents may complicate or limit interpretation of reproductive organ weights. The STP recommends that testes of all species be weighed in multidose general toxicology studies. Epididymides and prostate should be weighed in rat studies and may be weighed on a case-by-case basis in non-rodent and mouse studies. Weighing of other organs including female reproductive organs should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Organ weights are not recommended for any carcinogenicity studies including the alternative mouse bioassays. Regardless of the study type or organs evaluated, organ weight changes must be evaluated within the context of the compound class, mechanism of action, and the entire data set for that study.

Given that cardiovascular safety liabilities remain a major cause of drug attrition during preclinical and clinical development, adverse drug reactions, and post‐approval withdrawal of medicines, the Medical Research Council Centre for Drug Safety Science hosted a workshop to discuss current challenges in determining, understanding and addressing ‘Cardiovascular Toxicity of Medicines’. This article summarizes the key discussions from the workshop that aimed to address three major questions: (i) what are the key cardiovascular safety liabilities in drug discovery, drug development and clinical practice? (ii) how good are preclinical and clinical strategies for detecting cardiovascular liabilities? and (iii) do we have a mechanistic understanding of these liabilities? It was concluded that in order to understand, address and ultimately reduce cardiovascular safety liabilities of new therapeutic agents there is an urgent need to: Fully characterize the incidence, prevalence and impact of drug‐induced cardiovascular issues at all stages of the drug development process. Ascertain the predictive value of existing non‐clinical models and assays towards the clinical outcome. Understand the mechanistic basis of cardiovascular liabilities; by addressing areas where it is currently not possible to predict clinical outcome based on preclinical safety data. Provide scientists in all disciplines with additional skills to enable them to better integrate preclinical and clinical data and to better understand the biological and clinical significance of observed changes. Develop more appropriate, highly relevant and predictive tools and assays to identify and wherever feasible to eliminate cardiovascular safety liabilities from molecules and wherever appropriate to develop clinically relevant and reliable safety biomarkers.

No abstract

The Critical Path Institute recently established the Predictive Safety Testing Consortium, a collaboration between several companies and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, aimed at evaluating and qualifying biomarkers for a variety of toxicological endpoints. The Carcinogenicity Working Group of the Predictive Safety Testing Consortium has concentrated on sharing data to test the predictivity of two published hepatic gene expression signatures, including the signature by Fielden et al. (2007, Toxicol. Sci. 99, 90-100) for predicting nongenotoxic hepatocarcinogens, and the signature by Nie et al. (2006, Mol. Carcinog. 45, 914-933) for predicting nongenotoxic carcinogens. Although not a rigorous prospective validation exercise, the consortium approach created an opportunity to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate microarray data from short-term rat studies on over 150 compounds. Despite significant differences in study designs and microarray platforms between laboratories, the signatures proved to be relatively robust and more accurate than expected by chance. The accuracy of the Fielden et al. signature was between 63 and 69%, whereas the accuracy of the Nie et al. signature was between 55 and 64%. As expected, the predictivity was reduced relative to internal validation estimates reported under identical test conditions. Although the signatures were not deemed suitable for use in regulatory decision making, they were deemed worthwhile in the early assessment of drugs to aid decision making in drug development. These results have prompted additional efforts to rederive and evaluate a QPCR-based signature using these samples. When combined with a standardized test procedure and prospective interlaboratory validation, the accuracy and potential utility in preclinical applications can be ascertained.