NAM-supported read-across: From case studies to regulatory guidance in safety assessment

Main Article Content

Costanza Rovida , Sylvia E. Escher, Matthias Herzler, Susanne H. Bennekou, Hennicke Kamp, Dinant E. Kroese, Lidka Maslankiewicz, Martijn J. Moné, Grace Patlewicz, Nisha Sipes, Leon van Aerts, Andrew White, Takashi Yamada, Bob van de Water
[show affiliations]

Abstract

The use of new approach methodologies (NAMs) in support of read-across (RAx) approaches for regulatory purposes is a main goal of the EU-ToxRisk project. To bring this forward, EU-ToxRisk partners convened a workshop in close collaboration with regulatory representatives from key organizations including European regulatory agencies, such as the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), as well as the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS), national agencies from several European countries, Japan, Canada and the USA, as well as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). More than a hundred people actively participated in the discussions, bringing together diverse viewpoints across academia, regulators and industry. The discussion was organized starting from five practical cases of RAx applied to specific problems that offered the oppor­tunity to consider real examples.
There was general consensus that NAMs can improve confidence in RAx, in particular in defining category boundaries as well as characterizing the similarities/dissimilarities between source and target substances. In addition to describing dynamics, NAMs can be helpful in terms of kinetics and metabolism that may play an important role in the demonstration of similarity or dissimilarity among the members of a category. NAMs were also noted as effective in providing quanti­tative data correlated with traditional no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) used in risk assessment, while reducing the uncertainty on the final conclusion.
An interesting point of view was the advice on calibrating the number of new tests that should be carefully selected, avoiding the allure of “the more, the better”. Unfortunately, yet unsurprisingly, there was no single approach befitting every case, requiring careful analysis delineating the optimal approach. Expert analysis and assessment of each specific case is still an important step in the process.

Article Details

How to Cite
Rovida, C., Escher, S. E., Herzler, M., Bennekou, S. H., Kamp, H. ., Kroese, D. E. ., Maslankiewicz, L., Moné, M. J., Patlewicz, G., Sipes, N., van Aerts, L., White, A. ., Yamada, T. and van de Water, B. . (2021) “NAM-supported read-across: From case studies to regulatory guidance in safety assessment”, ALTEX - Alternatives to animal experimentation, 38(1), pp. 140–150. doi: 10.14573/altex.2010062.
Section
Meeting Reports
Author Biographies

Hennicke Kamp, Experimental Toxicology and Ecology, BASF SE, Ludwigshafen, Germany

 

 

 

Grace Patlewicz, Center for Computational Toxicology & Exposure (CCTE), US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

 

 

References

Benigni, R., Battistelli, C. L., Bossa, C. et al. (2019). Evaluation of the applicability of existing (Q)SAR models for predicting the genotoxicity of pesticides and similarity analysis related with genotoxicity of pesticides for facilitating of grouping and read across. EFSA Supporting Publications 16, 1598E. doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1598

Daneshian, M., Kamp, H., Hengstler, J. et al. (2016). Highlight report: Launch of a large integrated European in vitro toxicology project: EU-ToxRisk. Arch Toxicol 90, 1021-1024. doi:10.1007/s00204-016-1698-7

ECHA (2016). New Approach Methodologies in Regulatory Science. Proceedings of a scientific workshop. Helsinki, 19-20 April 2016. doi:10.2823/543644

ECHA (2017). Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF). doi:10.2823/619212

ECHA, EFSA, JRC et al. (2018). Guidance for the identification of endocrine disruptors in the context of Regulations (EU) No 528/2012 and (EC) No 1107/2009. EFSA J 16, e05311. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5311

EFSA (2016). Guidance on the establishment of the residue definition for dietary risk assessment. EFSA J 14, e04549. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4549

EFSA, Benford, D. Halldorsson, T. et al. (2017a). Guidance on Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessments. EFSA J 16, e05123. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5123

EFSA, Benford, D., Halldorsson, T. et al. (2017b). The principles and methods behind EFSA’s Guidance on Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessment. EFSA J 16, e05122. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5122

EFSA, Hart, A., Maxim, L. et al. (2019). Guidance on Communication of Uncertainty in Scientific Assessments. EFSA J 17, e05520. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5520

Escher, S. E., Kamp, H., Bennekou, S. H. et al. (2019). Towards grouping concepts based on new approach methodologies in chemical hazard assessment: The read-across approach of the EU-ToxRisk project. Arch Toxicol 93, 3643-3667. doi:10.1007/s00204-019-02591-7

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) and Ministry of the Environment (MOE) (2012). Technical guidance for risk assessment of priority assessment chemical substances based on Chemical Substances of Control Law. [Article in Japanese]. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/seisakunitsuite/bunya/kenkou_iryou/iyakuhin/topics/dl/tp120725-01-07.pdf

OECD (2014). Guidance Document for Describing Non-Guideline In Vitro Test Methods. OECD Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 211. OECD Publishing, Paris. doi:10.1787/9789264274730-en

OECD (2016). Report on Considerations from Case Studies on Integrated Approaches for Testing and Assessment (IATA). First Review Cycle (2015). OECD Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 250. OECD Publishing, Paris. doi:10.1787/9789264274815-en

OECD (2017). Report on Considerations from Case Studies on Integrated Approaches for Testing and Assessment (IATA). Second Review Cycle (2016). Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 270. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://bit.ly/2J5iGPw

OECD (2018a). Report on Considerations from Case Studies on Integrated Approaches for Testing and Assessment (IATA). Third Review Cycle (2017). Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 289. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://bit.ly/3m5VrmO

OECD (2018b). Case Study on the Use of Integrated Approaches for Testing and Assessment (IATA) for Estrogenicity of the Substituted Phenols. Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 290. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://bit.ly/36XPFgo

OECD (2019). Case Study on the Use of Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment for Testicular Toxicity of Ethylene Glycol Methyl Ether (EGME)-Related Chemicals. Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 308. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://bit.ly/2Ku8Vuq

Rovida, C., Barton-Maclaren, T., Benfenati, E. et al. (2020). Internationalisation of read-across as a validated new approach method (NAM) for regulatory toxicology. ALTEX 37, 579-606. doi:10.14573/altex.1912181

Schultz, T. W., Amcoff, P., Berggren, E. et al. (2015). A strategy for structuring and reporting a read-across prediction of toxicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 72, 586-601. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.05.016

Schultz, T. W., Richarz, A. N. and Cronin, M. T. D. (2019). Assessing uncertainty in read-across: Questions to evaluate toxicity predictions based on knowledge gained from case studies. Comput Toxicol 9, 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.comtox.2018.10.003

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2 3 4 5 6