Keirstead Natalie D, Janovitz Evan B, Meehan James T, LeRoy Bruce E, Megill John R, Peterson Richard A, Masson Regis G, Marxfeld Heike A
1 Merck & Co, Inc, West Point, PA, USA.
2 Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Toxicol Pathol. 2019 Jun;47(4):461-468. doi: 10.1177/0192623319835170. Epub 2019 Apr 24.
Anatomic pathology and clinical pathology end points are standard components of almost every nonclinical general toxicity study conducted during the risk assessment of novel pharmaceuticals and chemicals. On occasion, an ultrastructural pathology evaluation using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) may be included in nonclinical toxicity studies. Transmission electron microscopy is most commonly used when a light microscopic finding may require further characterization that could inform on the pathogenesis and/or mechanism of action. Regulatory guidance do not address the use of TEM in general study designs nor whether these assessments should be performed in laboratories conducted in compliance with Good Laboratory Practices. The Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) formed a Working Group to assess the current practices on the use of TEM in nonclinical toxicity studies. The Working Group constructed a survey sent to members of societies of toxicologic pathology in the United States, Europe, Britain, and Japan, and responses were collected through the STP for evaluation by the Working Group. The survey results and regulatory context are discussed, as are "points to consider" from the collective experience of the Working Group. This survey indicates that TEM remains an essential diagnostic option for complementing toxicologic pathology evaluations. *This Points to Consider article is a product of a Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) Working Group commissioned by the Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee (SRPC) of the STP. It has been reviewed and approved by the SRPC and Executive Committee of the STP but it does not represent a formal Best Practice recommendation of the Society; rather, it is intended to provide key "points to consider" in designing nonclinical studies or interpreting data from toxicity and safety studies intended to support regulatory submissions. The points expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not reflect views or policies of the employing institutions. Readers of Toxicologic Pathology are encouraged to send their thoughts on these articles or ideas for new topics to the Editor.
解剖病理学和临床病理学终点是新型药物和化学品风险评估期间几乎每项非临床常规毒性研究的标准组成部分。偶尔,非临床毒性研究中可能会包括使用透射电子显微镜(TEM)进行的超微结构病理学评估。当光学显微镜检查结果可能需要进一步表征以阐明发病机制和/或作用机制时,透射电子显微镜最为常用。监管指南未涉及TEM在一般研究设计中的使用,也未提及这些评估是否应在符合良好实验室规范的实验室中进行。毒理病理学会(STP)的科学与监管政策委员会成立了一个工作组,以评估非临床毒性研究中使用TEM的当前做法。该工作组构建了一项调查,发送给美国、欧洲、英国和日本毒理病理学会的成员,并通过STP收集回复以供工作组评估。本文讨论了调查结果和监管背景,以及工作组集体经验中的“要点考虑”。这项调查表明,TEM仍然是补充毒理病理学评估的重要诊断选项。*本要点考虑文章是毒理病理学会(STP)科学与监管政策委员会(SRPC)委托的一个STP工作组的成果。它已经过STP的SRPC和执行委员会的审查和批准,但它并不代表该学会的正式最佳实践建议;相反,它旨在为设计非临床研究或解释旨在支持监管申报的毒性和安全性研究数据提供关键的“要点考虑”。本文表达的观点是作者的观点,并不反映用人单位的观点或政策。鼓励《毒理病理学》的读者将他们对这些文章的想法或新主题的想法发送给编辑。