Opinion on Current Use of Non-Blinded Versus Blinded Histopathologic Evaluation in Animal Toxicity Studies

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].