Better define beta-optimizing MDD (minimum detectable difference) when interpreting treatment-related effects of pesticides in semi-field and field studies

In silico modelling of stroke volume, cardiac output and systemic vascular resistance in cardiovascular safety pharmacology studies by telemetry

The principle of proportionality of the systolic area of the central aortic pressure to stroke volume (SV) has been long known. The aim of the present work was to evaluate an in silico solution derived from this principle for modelling SV (iSV model) in cardiovascular safety pharmacology studies by telemetry. Blood pressure was measured in the abdominal aorta in accordance with standard practice. Central aortic pressure was modelled from the abdominal aortic pressure waveform using the N-point moving average (NPMA) method for beat-to-beat estimation of SV. First, the iSV was compared to the SV measured by ultrasonic flowmetry in the ascending aorta (uSV) after various pharmacological challenges in beagle dogs anaesthetised with etomidate/fentanyl. The iSV showed minimal bias (0.2 mL i.e. 2%) and excellent agreement with uSV. Then, previous telemetry studies including reference vasoactive and inotropic compounds were retrospectively reanalysed to model drug effects on stroke volume (iSV), cardiac output (iCO) and systemic vascular resistance (iSVR). Among them, the examples of nicardipine and isoprenaline highlight risks of erroneous or biased estimation of drug effects from the abdominal aortic pressure due to pulse pressure amplification. Furthermore, the examples of verapamil, quinidine and moxifloxacin show that iSV, iCO and iSVR are earlier biomarkers than blood pressure itself for predicting drug effect on blood pressure. This in silico modelling approach included in vivo telemetry safety pharmacology studies can be considered as a New Approach Methodology (NAM) that provides valuable additional information and contribute to improving non-clinical translational research to the clinic.

Best practice considerations for nonclinical in vivo cardiovascular telemetry studies in non-rodent species: Delivering high quality QTc data to support ICH E14/S7B Q&As

The ICH E14/S7B Questions and Answers (Q&As) guideline introduces the concept of a "double negative" nonclinical scenario (negative hERG assay and negative in vivo QTc study) to demonstrate that a drug does not produce a clinically relevant QT prolongation (i.e., no QT liability). This nonclinical "double negative" data package, along with negative Phase 1 clinical QTc data, may be sufficient to substitute for a clinical Thorough QT (TQT) study in some specific cases. While standalone GLP in vivo cardiovascular studies in non-rodent species are standard practice during nonclinical drug development for small molecule programs, a variety of approaches to the design, conduct, analysis and interpretation are utilized across pharmaceutical companies and contract research organizations (CROs) that may, in some cases, negatively impact the stringent sensitivity needed to fulfill the new Q&As. Subject matter experts from both Pharma and CROs have collaborated to recommend best practices for more robust nonclinical cardiovascular telemetry studies in non-rodent species, with input from clinical and regulatory experts. The aim was to increase consistency and harmonization across the industry and to ensure delivery of high quality nonclinical QTc data to meet the proposed sensitivities defined within the revised ICH E14/S7B Q&As guideline (Q&As 5.1 and 6.1). The detailed best practice recommendations presented here cover the design and execution of the safety pharmacology cardiovascular study, including optimal methods for acquiring, analyzing, reporting, and interpreting the resulting QTc and pharmacokinetic data to allow for direct comparison to clinical exposures and assessment of safety margin for QTc prolongation.

Holistic evaluation of long-term earthworm field studies with a fungicide

Plant protection products to be placed on the market in the European Union need to meet rigorous safety criteria including the testing of lumbricid earthworms, the functionally most important soil organism group in Central European agricultural ecosystems. To address uncertainties and investigate the potential long-term in-crop effects of the fungicide Cantus^® containing 50% boscalid as an active substance, a series of standardized earthworm field studies with an overall duration of 5 years per study program was carried out in four German agricultural fields under realistic crop rotation conditions. A two-step approach was chosen to analyze the potential overall long-term effects on earthworms in agricultural fields: (i) an assessment of the earthworm abundance development in the course of the four study programs in relation to the determined actual content of boscalid in soil and (ii) an effect size meta-analysis of earthworm abundance 1 year after treatment for each consecutive year and study program. Measured boscalid concentrations in the soil after multiple applications were well above the maximum boscalid residues observed in agricultural soils across Central Europe. There were isolated statistically significant reductions of earthworm abundance for some species and groups at some time points during the studies, but no consistent relationship to the Cantus^® treatments was observed. These results were supported by the meta-analysis, indicating no adverse effects on earthworm populations. Therefore, fluctuations of abundance reflect the natural variation of the populations rather than a concentration-related response. Based on this comprehensive analysis, we conclude that there is no application rate-related effect of the 5-year use of Cantus^® on the development of the earthworm communities. The four study programs, paired with a comprehensive evaluation, directly address the concerns about the potential long-term effects of boscalid on earthworms in the field and suggest that multiyear applications do not adversely affect earthworm populations. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2022;18:1399-1413. © 2021 ECT Oekotoxikologie GmbH and BASF SE. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

The Minimum Detectable Difference (MDD) Concept for Establishing Trust in Nonsignificant Results: A Critical Review

Current regulatory guidelines for pesticide risk assessment recommend that nonsignificant results should be complemented by the minimum detectable difference (MDD), a statistical indicator that is used to decide whether the experiment could have detected biologically relevant effects. We review the statistical theory of the MDD and perform simulations to understand its properties and error rates. Most importantly, we compare the skill of the MDD in distinguishing between true and false negatives (i.e., type II errors) with 2 alternatives: the minimum detectable effect (MDE), an indicator based on a post hoc power analysis common in medical studies; and confidence intervals (CIs). Our results demonstrate that MDD and MDE only differ in that the power of the MDD depends on the sample size. Moreover, although both MDD and MDE have some skill in distinguishing between false negatives and true absence of an effect, they do not perform as well as using CI upper bounds to establish trust in a nonsignificant result. The reason is that, unlike the CI, neither MDD nor MDE consider the estimated effect size in their calculation. We also show that MDD and MDE are no better than CIs in identifying larger effects among the false negatives. We conclude that, although MDDs are useful, CIs are preferable for deciding whether to treat a nonsignificant test result as a true negative, or for determining an upper bound for an unknown true effect. Environ Toxicol Chem 2020;39:2109-2123. © 2020 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

A two years field experiment to assess the impact of two fungicides on earthworm communities and their recovery

Recent EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) reports highlighted that the ecological risk assessment of pesticides needed to go further by taking more into account the impacts of chemicals on biodiversity under field conditions. We assessed the effects of two commercial formulations of fungicides separately and in mixture, i.e., Cuprafor Micro® (containing 500 g kg^-1 copper oxychloride) at 4 (C1, corresponding to 3.1 mg kg^-1 dry soil of copper) and 40 kg ha^-1 (C10), and Swing® Gold (50 g L^-1 epoxiconazole EPX and 133 g L^-1 dimoxystrobin DMX) at one (D1, 5.81 10^-2 and 1.55 10^-1 mg kg^-1 dry soil of EPX and DMX, respectively) and ten times (D10) the recommended field rate, on earthworms at 1, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after the application following the international ISO standard no. 11268-3 to determine the effects on earthworms in field situations. The D10 treatment significantly reduced the species diversity (Shannon diversity index, 54% of the control), anecic abundance (29% of the control), and total biomass (49% of the control) over the first 18 months of experiment. The Shannon diversity index also decreased in the mixture treatment (both fungicides at the recommended dose) at 1 and 6 months after the first application (68% of the control at both sampling dates), and in C10 (78% of the control) at 18 months compared with the control. Lumbricus terrestris, Aporrectodea caliginosa, Aporrectodea giardi, Aporrectodea longa, and Allolobophora chlorotica were (in decreasing order) the most sensitive species to the tested fungicides. This study not only addressed field ecotoxicological effects of fungicides at the community level and ecological recovery, but it also pinpointed some methodological weaknesses (e.g., regarding fungicide concentrations in soil and statistics) of the guideline to determine the effects on earthworms in field situations.