Gaining acceptance for the use of in vitro toxicity assays and QIVIVE in regulatory risk assessment.

Testing strategies are anticipated to increasingly rely on in vitro data as a basis to characterize early steps or key events in toxicity at relevant dose levels in human tissues. Such strategies require quantitative in vitro to in vivo extrapolation to characterize dose-response as a basis for comparison with exposure to estimate risk. Current experience in the incorporation of mechanistic and in vitro data in risk assessment is considered here in the context of identified principles to increase the potential for timely acceptance of more progressive and tailored testing strategies by the regulatory community. These principles are outlined as transitioning in a familiar context, tiering to acquire experience and increase confidence, contextual knowledge transfer to facilitate interpretation and communication, coordination and development of expertise and continuing challenge. A proposed pragmatic tiered data driven framework which includes increasing reliance on in vitro data and quantitative in vitro to in vivo extrapolation is considered in the context of these principles. Based on this analysis, possible additional steps that might facilitate timely evolution and potentially, uptake are identified.

[1]  A. B. Hill,et al.  "The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?" (1965), by Austin Bradford Hill , 2017 .

[2]  Valérie Zuang,et al.  Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects—2010 , 2011, Archives of Toxicology.

[3]  Bette Meek,et al.  Guidance for Derivation of Chemical-Specific Adjustment Factors (CSAF)—Development and Implementation , 2002 .

[4]  Robert J Kavlock,et al.  Integration of dosimetry, exposure, and high-throughput screening data in chemical toxicity assessment. , 2012, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[5]  Harvey J Clewell,et al.  PBTK modelling platforms and parameter estimation tools to enable animal-free risk assessment: recommendations from a joint EPAA--EURL ECVAM ADME workshop. , 2014, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[6]  M. E. Meek Categorical Default Uncertainty Factors-Interspecies Variation and Adequacy of Database , 2001 .

[7]  Robert J Kavlock,et al.  Incorporating human dosimetry and exposure into high-throughput in vitro toxicity screening. , 2010, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[8]  George Loizou,et al.  Characterizing uncertainty and variability in physiologically based pharmacokinetic models: state of the science and needs for research and implementation. , 2007, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[9]  Bas J Blaauboer,et al.  Biokinetic Modeling and in Vitro–in Vivo Extrapolations , 2010, Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews.

[10]  V. Armstrong,et al.  The Assessment and Management of Industrial Chemicals in Canada , 2007 .

[11]  M. E. Meek,et al.  Recent developments in frameworks to consider human relevance of hypothesized modes of action for tumours in animals , 2008, Environmental and molecular mutagenesis.

[12]  Kathryn Z. Guyton,et al.  Mode of Action Frameworks: A Critical Analysis , 2008, Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews.

[13]  Melvin E. Andersen,et al.  Incorporating New Technologies Into Toxicity Testing and Risk Assessment: Moving From 21st Century Vision to a Data-Driven Framework , 2013, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[14]  Alan R. Boobis,et al.  IPCS Framework for Analyzing the Relevance of a Noncancer Mode of Action for Humans , 2008, Critical reviews in toxicology.

[15]  R. Judson,et al.  Estimating toxicity-related biological pathway altering doses for high-throughput chemical risk assessment. , 2011, Chemical research in toxicology.

[16]  M E Meek,et al.  Tools for the prioritization of substances on the Domestic Substances List in Canada on the basis of hazard. , 2009, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[17]  Alan R. Boobis,et al.  Using mode of action information to improve regulatory decision-making: An ECETOC/ILSI RF/HESI workshop overview , 2011, Critical reviews in toxicology.

[18]  Michael B. Black,et al.  A comprehensive statistical analysis of predicting in vivo hazard using high-throughput in vitro screening. , 2012, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[19]  H. E. Buist,et al.  Characterization and application of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models in risk assessment , 2010 .

[20]  Daniel L Villeneuve,et al.  Adverse outcome pathways: A conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment , 2010, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[21]  Hugh A Barton,et al.  Case study illustrating the WHO IPCS guidance on characterization and application of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models in risk assessment. , 2013, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[22]  A. Renwick Data-derived safety factors for the evaluation of food additives and environmental contaminants. , 1993, Food additives and contaminants.

[23]  M.E. (Bette) Meek,et al.  International experience in addressing combined exposures: increasing the efficiency of assessment. , 2013, Toxicology.

[24]  M Younes,et al.  IPCS conceptual framework for evaluating a mode of action for chemical carcinogenesis. , 2001, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[25]  James E Klaunig,et al.  Proposed mode of action of benzene-induced leukemia: Interpreting available data and identifying critical data gaps for risk assessment. , 2010, Chemico-biological interactions.

[26]  M Dourson,et al.  Guidelines for application of chemical-specific adjustment factors in dose/concentration-response assessment. , 2002, Toxicology.

[27]  Jennifer Seed,et al.  Meeting The Common Needs of a More Effective and Efficient Testing and Assessment Paradigm for Chemical Risk Management , 2010, Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews.

[28]  Jennifer Seed,et al.  Overview: Using Mode of Action and Life Stage Information to Evaluate the Human Relevance of Animal Toxicity Data , 2005, Critical reviews in toxicology.

[29]  Alan R. Boobis,et al.  Re: Guyton, Kathryn Z., Barone, Stanley, Jr., Brown, Rebecca C., Euling, Susan Y., Jinot, Jennifer, Makris, Susan (2008). Mode of Action Frameworks: A Critical Analysis. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 11(1): 16–31 , 2008, Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews.

[30]  A. Klein Letter to the Editor: Re , 2005 .

[31]  J. Bailar,et al.  Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy , 2010, Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews.

[32]  George Loizou,et al.  Development of good modelling practice for physiologically based pharmacokinetic models for use in risk assessment: the first steps. , 2008, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[33]  Ursula Gundert-Remy,et al.  The use of toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic data in risk assessment: an international perspective. , 2002, The Science of the total environment.

[34]  M E Meek,et al.  New developments in the evolution and application of the WHO/IPCS framework on mode of action/species concordance analysis , 2013, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.

[35]  Jennifer Seed,et al.  A Framework for Human Relevance Analysis of Information on Carcinogenic Modes of Action , 2003, Critical reviews in toxicology.

[36]  Carolyn Vickers,et al.  Risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals: A WHO/IPCS framework. , 2011, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[37]  R Jeffrey Lewis,et al.  Mode of action human relevance (species concordance) framework: Evolution of the Bradford Hill considerations and comparative analysis of weight of evidence , 2014, Journal of applied toxicology : JAT.