Jennifer Seed

IPCS Framework for Analyzing the Relevance of a Noncancer Mode of Action for Humans

Structured frameworks are extremely useful in promoting transparent, harmonized approaches to the risk assessment of chemicals. One area where this has been particularly successful is in the analysis of modes of action (MOAs) for chemical carcinogens in experimental animals and their relevance to humans. The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) recently published an updated version of its MOA framework in animals to address human relevance (cancer human relevance framework, or HRF). This work has now been extended to noncancer effects, with the eventual objective of harmonizing framework approaches to both cancer and noncancer endpoints. As in the cancer HRF, the first step is to determine whether the weight of evidence based on experimental observations is sufficient to establish a hypothesized MOA. This comprises a series of key events causally related to the toxic effect, identified using an approach based on the Bradford Hill criteria. These events are then compared qualitatively and, next, quantitatively between experimental animals and humans. The output of the analysis is a clear statement of conclusions, together with the confidence, analysis, and implications of the findings. This framework provides a means of ensuring a transparent evaluation of the data, identification of key data gaps and of information that would be of value in the further risk assessment of the compound, such as on dose–response relationships, and recognition of potentially susceptible subgroups, for example, based on life-stage considerations.

A Framework for Human Relevance Analysis of Information on Carcinogenic Modes of Action

The human relevance framework (HRF) outlines a four-part process, beginning with data on the mode of action (MOA) in laboratory animals, for evaluating the human relevance of animal tumors. Drawing on U.S. EPA and IPCS proposals for animal MOA analysis, the HRF expands those analyses to include a systematic evaluation of comparability, or lack of comparability, between the postulated animal MOA and related information from human data sources. The HRF evolved through a series of case studies representing several different MOAs. HRF analyses produced divergent outcomes, some leading to complete risk assessment and others discontinuing the process, according to the data available from animal and human sources. Two case examples call for complete risk assessments. One is the default: When data are insufficient to confidently postulate a MOA for test animals, the animal tumor data are presumed to be relevant for risk assessment and a complete risk assessment is necessary. The other is the product of a data-based finding that the animal MOA is relevant to humans. For the specific MOA and endpoint combinations studied for this article, full risk assessments are necessary for potentially relevant MOAs involving cytotoxicity and cell proliferation in animals and humans (Case Study 6, chloroform) and formation of urinary-tract calculi (Case Study 7, melamine). In other circumstances, when data-based findings for the chemical and endpoint combination studied indicate that the tumor-related animal MOA is unlikely to have a human counterpart, there is little reason to continue the risk assessment for that combination. Similarly, when qualitative considerations identify MOAs specific to the test species or quantitative considerations indicate that the animal MOA is unlikely to occur in humans, such hazard findings are generally conclusive and further risk assessment is not necessary for the endpoint–MOA combination under study. Case examples include a tumor-related protein specific to test animals (Case Study 3, d-limonene), the tumor consequences of hormone suppression typical of laboratory animals but not humans (Case Study 4, atrazine), and chemical-related enhanced hormone clearance rates in animals relative to humans (Case Study 5, phenobarbital). The human relevance analysis is highly specific for the chemical–MOA–tissue–endpoint combination under analysis in any particular case: different tissues, different endpoints, or alternative MOAs for a given chemical may result in different human relevance findings. By providing a systematic approach to using MOA data, the HRF offers a new tool for the scientific communitys overall effort to enhance the predictive power, reliability and transparency of cancer risk assessment.

Methods for assessing sperm motility, morphology, and counts in the rat, rabbit, and dog: A consensus report☆

Reproductive toxicity studies are increasingly including assessments of sperm parameters including motility, morphology, and counts. While these assessments can provide valuable information for the determination of potential reproductive toxicity, the methods for conducting the assessments have not been well developed in all laboratories and are continually evolving. The use of different methods in different laboratories makes comparison of data among laboratories difficult. To address the differences in methods, a working group was convened to discuss methods currently in use, share data, and try to reach consensus about optimal methods for assessing sperm parameters in rats, rabbits, and dogs. This article presents the consensus report, as well as future research needs, with the hope that optimized common methods will aid in the detection of reproductive effects and enhance interlaboratory comparisons.

Overview: Using mode of action and life stage information to evaluate the human relevance of animal toxicity data

A complete mode of action human relevance analysis—as distinct from mode of action (MOA) analysis alone—depends on robust information on the animal MOA, as well as systematic comparison of the animal data with corresponding information from humans. In November 2003, the International Life Sciences Institutes Risk Science Institute (ILSI RSI) published a 2-year study using animal and human MOA information to generate a four-part Human Relevance Framework (HRF) for systematic and transparent analysis of MOA data and information. Based mainly on non-DNA-reactive carcinogens, the HRF features a “concordance” analysis of MOA information from both animal and human sources, with a focus on determining the appropriate role for each MOA data set in human risk assessment. With MOA information increasingly available for risk assessment purposes, this article illustrates the further applicability of the HRF for reproductive, developmental, neurologic, and renal endpoints, as well as cancer. Based on qualitative and quantitative MOA considerations, the MOA/human relevance analysis also contributes to identifying data needs and issues essential for the dose-response and exposure assessment steps in the overall risk assessment.

New developments in the evolution and application of the WHO/IPCS framework on mode of action/species concordance analysis†

The World Health Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety mode of action/human relevance framework has been updated to reflect the experience acquired in its application and extend its utility to emerging areas in toxicity testing and non‐testing methods. The underlying principles have not changed, but the frameworks scope has been extended to enable integration of information at different levels of biological organization and reflect evolving experience in a much broader range of potential applications. Mode of action/species concordance analysis can also inform hypothesis‐based data generation and research priorities in support of risk assessment. The modified framework is incorporated within a roadmap, with feedback loops encouraging continuous refinement of fit‐for‐purpose testing strategies and risk assessment. Important in this construct is consideration of dose–response relationships and species concordance analysis in weight of evidence. The modified Bradford Hill considerations have been updated and additionally articulated to reflect increasing experience in application for cases where the toxicological outcome of chemical exposure is known. The modified framework can be used as originally intended, where the toxicological effects of chemical exposure are known, or in hypothesizing effects resulting from chemical exposure, using information on putative key events in established modes of action from appropriate in vitro or in silico systems and other lines of evidence. This modified mode of action framework and accompanying roadmap and case examples are expected to contribute to improving transparency in explicitly addressing weight of evidence considerations in mode of action/species concordance analysis based on both conventional data sources and evolving methods. Copyright

Classification terms in developmental toxicology: need for harmonisation. Report of the Second Workshop on the Terminology in Developmental Toxicology Berlin, 27-28 August 1998.

Abstract The existence of ambiguities and inconsistencies in the use of terms for structural anomalies is a major problem in developmental toxicology and causes great difficulties for administrative decision makers involved in public health evaluation of chemical substances. The absence of harmonisation of terminology is no longer acceptable for regulatory purposes. The debate is unending, however, refinement and consensus are indispensable. This article is a report of the Second Workshop on Terminology in Developmental Toxicology. Experts from research institutions, regulatory agencies, and industries took part in this workshop, which has started a process of discussion that eventually will lead to a harmonisation of terminology used for classification of structural anomalies. The participants put forward a scheme of classification for foetal abnormalities that consists of only two categories: “malformation and variation.” Finally, consensus was achieved in defining the terms malformation and variation. Malformation is defined as a permanent structural change that is likely to adversely affect the survival or health of the species under investigation. The term variation is defined as a change that occurs within the normal population under investigation and is unlikely to adversely affect survival or health. This change might include a delay in growth or morphogenesis that has otherwise followed a normal pattern of development.

Mode of action framework analysis for receptor-mediated toxicity: The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα) as a case study

Abstract Several therapeutic agents and industrial chemicals induce liver tumors in rodents through the activation of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα). The cellular and molecular events by which PPARα activators induce rodent hepatocarcinogenesis has been extensively studied and elucidated. This review summarizes the weight of evidence relevant to the hypothesized mode of action (MOA) for PPARα activator-induced rodent hepatocarcinogenesis and identifies gaps in our knowledge of this MOA. Chemical-specific and mechanistic data support concordance of temporal and dose–response relationships for the key events associated with many PPARα activators including a phthalate ester plasticizer di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and the drug gemfibrozil. While biologically plausible in humans, the hypothesized key events in the rodent MOA, for PPARα activators, are unlikely to induce liver tumors in humans because of toxicodynamic and biological differences in responses. This conclusion is based on minimal or no effects observed on growth pathways, hepatocellular proliferation and liver tumors in humans and/or species (including hamsters, guinea pigs and cynomolgous monkeys) that are more appropriate human surrogates than mice and rats at overlapping dose levels. Overall, the panel concluded that significant quantitative differences in PPARα activator-induced effects related to liver cancer formation exist between rodents and humans. On the basis of these quantitative differences, most of the workgroup felt that the rodent MOA is “not relevant to humans” with the remaining members concluding that the MOA is “unlikely to be relevant to humans”. The two groups differed in their level of confidence based on perceived limitations of the quantitative and mechanistic knowledge of the species differences, which for some panel members strongly supports but cannot preclude the absence of effects under unlikely exposure scenarios.

Meeting The Common Needs of a More Effective and Efficient Testing and Assessment Paradigm for Chemical Risk Management

Significant advances have been made in human health and ecological risk assessment over the last decade. Substantial challenges, however, remain in providing credible scientific information in a timely and efficient manner to support chemical risk assessment and management decisions. A major challenge confronting risk managers is the need for critical information to address risk uncertainties in large chemical inventories such as high- and medium-production-volume industrial chemicals or pesticide inert ingredients. From a strategic and tactical viewpoint, an integrated approach that relies on all existing knowledge and uses a range of methods, including those from emerging and novel technologies, is needed to advance progressive and focused testing strategies, as well as to advance the utility and predictability of the risk assessment by providing more relevant information. A hypothesis-based approach that draws on all relevant information is consistent with the vision articulated in the 2007 report by the National Research Council, Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. This article describes the current practices in evaluating chemical risks and ongoing efforts to enhance the quality and efficiency of risk assessment and risk management decisions within the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Current and future needs for developmental toxicity testing.

A review is presented of the use of developmental toxicity testing in the United States and international regulatory assessment of human health risks associated with exposures to pharmaceuticals (human and veterinary), chemicals (agricultural, industrial, and environmental), food additives, cosmetics, and consumer products. Developmental toxicology data are used for prioritization and screening of pharmaceuticals and chemicals, for evaluating and labeling of pharmaceuticals, and for characterizing hazards and risk of exposures to industrial and environmental chemicals. The in vivo study designs utilized in hazard characterization and dose-response assessment for developmental outcomes have not changed substantially over the past 30 years and have served the process well. Now there are opportunities to incorporate new technologies and approaches to testing into the existing assessment paradigm, or to apply innovative approaches to various aspects of risk assessment. Developmental toxicology testing can be enhanced by the refinement or replacement of traditional in vivo protocols, including through the use of in vitro assays, studies conducted in alternative nonmammalian species, the application of new technologies, and the use of in silico models. Potential benefits to the current regulatory process include the ability to screen large numbers of chemicals quickly, with the commitment of fewer resources than traditional toxicology studies, and to refine the risk assessment process through an enhanced understanding of the mechanisms of developmental toxicity and their relevance to potential human risk. As the testing paradigm evolves, the ability to use developmental toxicology data to meet diverse critical regulatory needs must be retained.

Classification schemes for carcinogenicity based on hazard-identification have become outmoded and serve neither science nor society

Classification schemes for carcinogenicity based solely on hazard-identification such as the IARC monograph process and the UN system adopted in the EU have become outmoded. They are based on a concept developed in the 1970s that chemicals could be divided into two classes: carcinogens and non-carcinogens. Categorization in this way places into the same category chemicals and agents with widely differing potencies and modes of action. This is how eating processed meat can fall into the same category as sulfur mustard gas. Approaches based on hazard and risk characterization present an integrated and balanced picture of hazard, dose response and exposure and allow informed risk management decisions to be taken. Because a risk-based decision framework fully considers hazard in the context of dose, potency, and exposure the unintended downsides of a hazard only approach are avoided, e.g., health scares, unnecessary economic costs, loss of beneficial products, adoption of strategies with greater health costs, and the diversion of public funds into unnecessary research. An initiative to agree upon a standardized, internationally acceptable methodology for carcinogen assessment is needed now. The approach should incorporate principles and concepts of existing international consensus-based frameworks including the WHO IPCS mode of action framework.