Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Best Practices: Recommended (“Best”) Practices for Informed (Non-blinded) Versus Masked (Blinded) Microscopic Evaluation in Animal Toxicity Studies

Abstract

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.

Alginate and Nanocellulose Dressings With Extract From Salmon Roe Reduce Inflammation and Accelerate Healing of Porcine Burn Wounds

“…For microscopic evaluation, blinded examination is not recommended as it increases the risk of missing subtle treatment-related changes. 52 The porcine model was chosen based on its similarity to humans, however, there are some obvious differences: The pig skin is thicker, lacks eccrine glands, and its immune system is slightly different than humans. In the study design, we chose to make many small wounds instead of fewer large wounds.…”

Preclinical safety and biodistribution assessment of Ad‐KCNH2‐G628S administered via atrial painting in New Zealand white rabbits

“…However, the published recommendation of a working group commissioned by the Society of Toxicological Pathologists is that ‘informed microscopic evaluation’ (i.e. non‐blinded evaluation) is the ‘default approach’ for animal toxicity studies with the purpose of identifying and characterizing toxicity of a test article 30 . In contrast, a masked evaluation as a routine approach reduces sensitivity and specificity of the microscopic analysis.…”

“…non-blinded evaluation) is the 'default approach' for animal toxicity studies with the purpose of identifying and characterizing toxicity of a test article. 30 In contrast, a masked evaluation as a routine approach reduces sensitivity and specificity of the microscopic analysis. The remaining study endpoints had quantitative outcomes less amenable to bias.…”

Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Points to Consider: Sampling, Processing, Evaluation, Interpretation, and Reporting of Test Article-Related Ganglion Pathology for Nonclinical Toxicity Studies

“…The severity grade is a frequent corollary component for a histopathologic diagnosis that helps differentiate TA-associated effects from incidental ("background") findings and aids in defining no observed adverse effect levels (NOAEL) or equivalent cutoff values during hazard characterization. 147,148 Such grades are used to sort morphologic findings into groups of similar degree for interpretation. For this reason, severity grades are essential tools for discriminating treatment-related effects from incidental background findings and establishing thresholds (e.g., highest non-severely toxic dose [HNSTD], lowest observed adverse effect level [LOAEL], or NOAEL) for risk assessment.…”