Kathleen Raffaele

A Retrospective Performance Assessment of the Developmental Neurotoxicity Study in Support of OECD Test Guideline 426

Objective We conducted a review of the history and performance of developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) testing in support of the finalization and implementation of Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) DNT test guideline 426 (TG 426). Information sources and analysis In this review we summarize extensive scientific efforts that form the foundation for this testing paradigm, including basic neurotoxicology research, interlaboratory collaborative studies, expert workshops, and validation studies, and we address the relevance, applicability, and use of the DNT study in risk assessment. Conclusions The OECD DNT guideline represents the best available science for assessing the potential for DNT in human health risk assessment, and data generated with this protocol are relevant and reliable for the assessment of these end points. The test methods used have been subjected to an extensive history of international validation, peer review, and evaluation, which is contained in the public record. The reproducibility, reliability, and sensitivity of these methods have been demonstrated, using a wide variety of test substances, in accordance with OECD guidance on the validation and international acceptance of new or updated test methods for hazard characterization. Multiple independent, expert scientific peer reviews affirm these conclusions.

The use of developmental neurotoxicity data in pesticide risk assessments

Following the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act, which mandated an increased focus on evaluating the potential toxicity of pesticides to children, the number of guideline developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) studies (OPPTS 870.6300) submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) was greatly increased. To evaluate the impact of available DNT studies on individual chemical risk assessments, the ways in which data from these studies are being used in pesticide risk assessment were investigated. In addition, the neurobehavioral and neuropathological parameters affected at the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) for each study were evaluated to ascertain whether some types of endpoints were consistently more sensitive than others. As of December 2008, final OPP reviews of DNT studies for 72 pesticide chemicals were available; elimination of studies with major deficiencies resulted in a total of 69 that were included in this analysis. Of those studies, 15 had been used to determine the point of departure for one or more risk assessment scenarios, and an additional 13 were determined to have the potential for use as a point of departure for future risk assessments (selection is dependent upon review of the entire database available at the time of reassessment). Analysis of parameters affected at the study LOAELs indicated that no single parameter was consistently more sensitive than another. Early assessment time points (e.g., postnatal day (PND) 11/21) tended to be more sensitive than later time points (e.g., PND 60). These results demonstrate that data generated using the current guideline DNT study protocol are useful in providing points of departure for risk assessments. The results of these studies also affirm the importance of evaluating a spectrum of behavioral and neuropathological endpoints, in both young and adult animals, to improve the detection of the potential for a chemical to cause developmental neurotoxicity.

Determining normal variability in a developmental neurotoxicity test A report from the ILSI Research Foundation/Risk Science Institute expert working group on neurodevelopmental endpoints

With the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996, more detailed evaluations of possible health effects of pesticides on developing organisms have been required. As a result, considerable developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) data have been generated on a variety of endpoints, including developmental changes in motor activity, auditory startle habituation, and various learning and memory parameters. One issue in interpreting these data is the level of variability for the measures used in these studies: excessive variability can obscure treatment-related effects, or conversely, small but statistically significant changes could be viewed as treatment related, when they might in fact be within the normal range. To aid laboratories in designing useful DNT studies for regulatory consideration, an operational framework for evaluating observed variability in study data has been developed. Elements of the framework suggest how an investigator might approach characterization of variability in the dataset; identification of appropriate datasets for comparison; evaluation of similarities and differences in variability between these datasets, and of possible sources of the variability, including those related to test conduct and test design. A case study using auditory startle habituation data is then presented, employing the elements of this proposed approach.

A proposal to facilitate weight-of-evidence assessments: Harmonization of Neurodevelopmental Environmental Epidemiology Studies (HONEES)

The ability to conduct weight-of-evidence assessments to inform the evaluation of potential environmental neurotoxicants is limited by lack of comparability of study methods, data analysis, and reporting. There is a need to establish consensus guidelines for conducting, analyzing, and reporting neurodevelopmental environmental epidemiologic studies, while recognizing that consistency is likewise needed for epidemiology studies examining other health outcomes. This paper proposes a set of considerations to be used by the scientific community at-large as a tool for systematically evaluating the quality of proposed and/or published studies in terms of their value for weight-of-evidence assessments. Particular emphasis is placed on evaluating factors influencing the risk of incorrect conclusions at the level of study findings. The proposed considerations are the first step in what must be a larger consensus-based process and can serve to catalyze such a discussion. Achieving consensus in these types of endeavors is difficult; however, opportunities exist for further interdisciplinary discussion, collaboration, and research that will help realize this goal. Broad acceptance and application of such an approach can facilitate the expanded use of environmental epidemiology studies of potential neurodevelopmental toxicants in the protection of public health, and specifically childrens health.

Recommendations for harmonization of data collection and analysis of developmental neurotoxicity endpoints in regulatory guideline studies: Proceedings of workshops presented at Society of Toxicology and joint Teratology Society and Neurobehavioral Teratology Society meetings

The potential for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) of environmental chemicals may be evaluated using specific test guidelines from the US Environmental Protection Agency or the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). These guidelines generate neurobehavioral, neuropathological, and morphometric data that are evaluated by regulatory agencies globally. Data from these DNT guideline studies, or the more recent OECD extended one-generation reproductive toxicity guideline, play a pivotal role in childrens health risk assessment in different world areas. Data from the same study may be interpreted differently by regulatory authorities in different countries resulting in inconsistent evaluations that may lead to inconsistencies in risk assessment decisions internationally, resulting in regional differences in public health protection or in commercial trade barriers. These issues of data interpretation and reporting are also relevant to juvenile and pre-postnatal studies conducted more routinely for pharmaceuticals and veterinary medicines. There is a need for development of recommendations geared toward the operational needs of the regulatory scientific reviewers who apply these studies in risk assessments, as well as the scientists who generate DNT data sets. The workshops summarized here draw upon the experience of the authors representing government, industry, contract research organizations, and academia to discuss the scientific issues that have emerged from diverse regulatory evaluations. Although various regulatory bodies have different risk management decisions and labeling requirements that are difficult to harmonize, the workshops provided an opportunity to work toward more harmonized scientific approaches for evaluating DNT data within the context of different regulatory frameworks. Five speakers and their coauthors with neurotoxicology, neuropathology, and regulatory toxicology expertise discussed issues of variability, data reporting and analysis, and expectations in DNT data that are encountered by regulatory authorities. In addition, principles for harmonized evaluation of data were suggested using guideline DNT data as case studies.