The severity grade is an important component of a histopathologic diagnosis in a nonclinical toxicity study that helps distinguish treatment-related effects from background findings and aids in determining adverse dose levels during hazard characterization. Severity grades should be assigned based only on the extent (i.e., amount and complexity) of the morphologic change in the examined tissue section(s) and be clearly defined in the pathology report for critical lesions impacting study interpretation. However, the level of detail provided and criteria by which severity grades are assigned can vary, which can lead to inappropriate comparisons and confusion when evaluating pathology results. To help address this issue, a Working Group of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology's Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee was formed to provide a "points to consider" article on the assignment and application of pathology severity grades. Overall, the Working Group supports greater transparency and consistency in the reporting of grading scales and provides recommendations to improve selection of diagnoses requiring more detailed severity criteria. This information should enhance the overall understanding by toxicologic pathologists, toxicologists, and regulatory reviewers of pathology findings and thereby improve effective communication in regulatory submissions.

The identification of adverse health effects has a central role in the development and risk/safety assessment of chemical entities and pharmaceuticals. There is currently a need for better alignment regarding how nonclinical adversity is determined and characterized. The European Society of Toxicologic Pathology (ESTP) therefore coordinated a workshop to review available definitions of adversity, weigh determining and qualifying factors of adversity based on case examples, and recommend a practical approach to define and characterize adversity in toxicology reports, to serve as a valuable prerequisite for future organ-or lesion-specific workshops planned by the ESTP.

Recommendations (best practices) are provided by the Society of Toxicologic Pathology's Adversity Working Group for making consistent interpretations of test article-related effects as "adverse" and assigning a "no observed adverse effect level" (NOAEL) in nonclinical toxicity studies. Adverse is a term indicating "harm" to the test animal, while nonadverse indicates lack of harm. Adverse findings in the study reports should be defined in relation to effects on the test species used and within the context of the given study. Test article-related effects should be described on their own merits, and decisions to consider them as adverse or nonadverse should be justified. Related effects may be discussed together; in particular, markers of toxicity that are not in and of themselves adverse ideally should be discussed in conjunction with the causal toxicity to determine adversity. Adverse findings should be identified in subreports (clinical data, pathology data, etc.) if sufficient information is available, and/or in the final study report as individual or grouped findings, but study NOAELs should be established at the level of the overall study report. Interpretations such as "not biologically relevant" or "not toxicologically important" should be avoided unless defined and supported by scientific rationale. Decisions defining adverse findings and the NOAEL in final study reports should combine the expertise of all contributing scientific disciplines. Where possible, use of NOAELs in data tables should be linked to explanatory text that places them in context. Ideally, in nonclinical summary documents, NOAELs from multiple studies are considered together in defining the most important adverse responses in the most sensitive species. These responses are then considered along with an understanding of their likely mechanisms, as well as other information such as variability in species sensitivity, comparative pathology, reversibility and progression, kinetics, and metabolism of the test substance to help assess human risk.

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]