Marlene Ågerstrand

Improving environmental risk assessment of human pharmaceuticals.

This paper presents 10 recommendations for improving the European Medicines Agencys guidance for environmental risk assessment of human pharmaceutical products. The recommendations are based on up-to-date, available science in combination with experiences from other chemical frameworks such as the REACH-legislation for industrial chemicals. The recommendations concern: expanding the scope of the current guideline; requirements to assess the risk for development of antibiotic resistance; jointly performed assessments; refinement of the test proposal; mixture toxicity assessments on active pharmaceutical ingredients with similar modes of action; use of all available ecotoxicity studies; mandatory reviews; increased transparency; inclusion of emission data from production; and a risk management option. We believe that implementation of our recommendations would strengthen the protection of the environment and be beneficial to society. Legislation and guidance documents need to be updated at regular intervals in order to incorporate new knowledge from the scientific community. This is particularly important for regulatory documents concerning pharmaceuticals in the environment since this is a research field that has been growing substantially in the last decades.

CRED: Criteria for reporting and evaluating ecotoxicity data.

Predicted-no-effect concentrations (PNECs) and environmental quality standards (EQSs) are derived in a large number of legal frameworks worldwide. When deriving these safe concentrations, it is necessary to evaluate the reliability and relevance of ecotoxicity studies. Such evaluation is often subject to expert judgment, which may introduce bias and decrease consistency when risk assessors evaluate the same study. The Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating Ecotoxicity Data (CRED) project attempts to address this problem. It aims to improve the reproducibility, transparency, and consistency of reliability and relevance evaluations of aquatic ecotoxicity studies among regulatory frameworks, countries, institutes, and individual assessors. In the present study, the CRED evaluation method is presented. It includes a set of 20 reliability and 13 relevance criteria, accompanied by extensive guidance. Risk assessors who participated in the CRED ring test evaluated the CRED evaluation method to be more accurate, applicable, consistent, and transparent than the often-used Klimisch method. The CRED evaluation method is accompanied by reporting recommendations for aquatic ecotoxicity studies, with 50 specific criteria divided into 6 categories: general information, test design, test substance, test organism, exposure conditions, and statistical design and biological response. An ecotoxicity study in which all important information is reported is more likely to be considered for regulatory use, and proper reporting may also help in the peer-review process.

Reporting and evaluation criteria as means towards a transparent use of ecotoxicity data for environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals

Ecotoxicity data with high reliability and relevance are needed to guarantee the scientific quality of environmental risk assessments of pharmaceuticals. The main advantages of a more structured approach to data evaluation include increased transparency and predictability of the risk assessment process, and the possibility to use non-standard data. In this collaboration, between the research project MistraPharma and the German Federal Environment Agency, a new set of reporting and evaluation criteria is presented and discussed. The new criteria are based on the approaches in the literature and the OECD reporting requirements, and have been further developed to include both reliability and relevance of test data. Intended users are risk assessors and researchers performing ecotoxicological experiments, but the criteria can also be used for education purposes and in the peer-review process for scientific papers. This approach intends to bridge the gap between the regulator and the scientists needs and way of work.

Comparison of four different methods for reliability evaluation of ecotoxicity data: a case study of non-standard test data used in environmental risk assessments of pharmaceutical substances

BackgroundStandard test data are still preferred and recommended for regulatory environmental risk assessments of pharmaceuticals even though data generated by non-standard tests could improve the scientific basis of risk assessments by providing relevant and more sensitive endpoints.The aim of this study was to investigate if non-standard ecotoxicity data can be evaluated systematically in risk assessments of pharmaceuticals. This has been done by evaluating the usefulness of four reliability evaluation methods, and by investigating whether recently published non-standard ecotoxicity studies from the open scientific literature fulfill the criteria that these methods propose.ResultsThe same test data were evaluated differently by the four methods in seven out of nine cases. The selected non-standard test data were considered reliable/acceptable in only 14 out of 36 cases.ConclusionsThe four evaluation methods differ in scope, user friendliness, and how criteria are weighted and summarized. This affected the outcome of the data evaluation.The results suggest that there is room for improvements in how data are reported in the open scientific literature. Reliability evaluation criteria could be used as a checklist to ensure that all important aspects are reported and thereby increasing the possibility that the data could be used for regulatory risk assessment.

Bad Reporting or Bad Science? Systematic Data Evaluation as a Means to Improve the Use of Peer-Reviewed Studies in Risk Assessments of Chemicals

ABSTRACT In this study we assess the applicability of a set of reliability criteria proposed by Ågerstrand et al. This was done by evaluating the reliability of 12 non-standard peer-reviewed ecotoxicity and toxicity studies for Bisphenol A. There was an overall agreement between the evaluator and the authors of the papers regarding the result of the evaluations. This suggests that the criteria offer enough guidance to be a useful and consistent evaluation tool. It provides a transparent and structured approach, and ensures that a minimum and similar set of criteria is used. The evaluation of the peer-reviewed ecotoxicity and toxicity studies concludes that important information is sometimes missing, and therefore the studies do not always meet common regulatory requirements regarding reporting. Whether this is due to insufficient reporting or due to poorly performed studies is not known. To improve the reporting, and thereby promote reliability and reproducibility, researchers, reviewers, and editors are recommended to use the suggested criteria as a guideline. In conclusion, in order to improve the reliability of peer-reviewed studies, and to increase their use in regulatory risk assessments of chemicals, the dialog between regulators, researchers, and editors regarding how to evaluate and report studies needs to be strengthened.

A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals.

BackgroundThe issue of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is receiving wide attention from both the scientific and regulatory communities. Recent analyses of the EDC literature have been criticized for failing to use transparent and objective approaches to draw conclusions about the strength of evidence linking EDC exposures to adverse health or environmental outcomes. Systematic review methodologies are ideal for addressing this issue as they provide transparent and consistent approaches to study selection and evaluation. Objective methods are needed for integrating the multiple streams of evidence (epidemiology, wildlife, laboratory animal, in vitro, and in silico data) that are relevant in assessing EDCs.MethodsWe have developed a framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of EDC studies. The framework was designed for use with the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS) and World Health Organization (WHO) definition of an EDC, which requires appraisal of evidence regarding 1) association between exposure and an adverse effect, 2) association between exposure and endocrine disrupting activity, and 3) a plausible link between the adverse effect and the endocrine disrupting activity.ResultsBuilding from existing methodologies for evaluating and synthesizing evidence, the SYRINA framework includes seven steps: 1) Formulate the problem; 2) Develop the review protocol; 3) Identify relevant evidence; 4) Evaluate evidence from individual studies; 5) Summarize and evaluate each stream of evidence; 6) Integrate evidence across all streams; 7) Draw conclusions, make recommendations, and evaluate uncertainties. The proposed method is tailored to the IPCS/WHO definition of an EDC but offers flexibility for use in the context of other definitions of EDCs.ConclusionsWhen using the SYRINA framework, the overall objective is to provide the evidence base needed to support decision making, including any action to avoid/minimise potential adverse effects of exposures. This framework allows for the evaluation and synthesis of evidence from multiple evidence streams. Finally, a decision regarding regulatory action is not only dependent on the strength of evidence, but also the consequences of action/inaction, e.g. limited or weak evidence may be sufficient to justify action if consequences are serious or irreversible.

How we can make ecotoxicology more valuable to environmental protection.

There is increasing awareness that the value of peer-reviewed scientific literature is not consistent, resulting in a growing desire to improve the practice and reporting of studies. This is especially important in the field of ecotoxicology, where regulatory decisions can be partly based on data from the peer-reviewed literature, with wide-reaching implications for environmental protection. Our objective is to improve the reporting of ecotoxicology studies so that they can be appropriately utilized in a fair and transparent fashion, based on their reliability and relevance. We propose a series of nine reporting requirements, followed by a set of recommendations for adoption by the ecotoxicology community. These reporting requirements will provide clarity on the the test chemical, experimental design and conditions, chemical identification, test organisms, exposure confirmation, measurable endpoints, how data are presented, data availability and statistical analysis. Providing these specific details will allow for a fuller assessment of the reliability and relevance of the studies, including limitations. Recommendations for the implementation of these reporting requirements are provided herein for practitioners, journals, reviewers, regulators, stakeholders, funders, and professional societies. If applied, our recommendations will improve the quality of ecotoxicology studies and their value to environmental protection.

Uppsala Consensus Statement on Environmental Contaminants and the Global Obesity Epidemic

Summary: From the lectures presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Obesity and Environmental Contaminants, which was held in Uppsala, Sweden, on 8–9 October 2015, it became evident that the findings from numerous animal and epidemiological studies are consistent with the hypothesis that environmental contaminants could contribute to the global obesity epidemic. To increase awareness of this important issue among scientists, regulatory agencies, politicians, chemical industry management, and the general public, the authors summarize compelling scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis and discuss actions that could restrict the possible harmful effects of environmental contaminants on obesity.

Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating ecotoxicity Data (CRED): comparison and perception of the Klimisch and CRED methods for evaluating reliability and relevance of ecotoxicity studies

BackgroundThe regulatory evaluation of ecotoxicity studies for environmental risk and/or hazard assessment of chemicals is often performed using the method established by Klimisch and colleagues in 1997. The method was, at that time, an important step toward improved evaluation of study reliability, but lately it has been criticized for lack of detail and guidance, and for not ensuring sufficient consistency among risk assessors.Results A new evaluation method was thus developed: Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating ecotoxicity Data (CRED). The CRED evaluation method aims at strengthening consistency and transparency of hazard and risk assessment of chemicals by providing criteria and guidance for reliability and relevance evaluation of aquatic ecotoxicity studies. A two-phased ring test was conducted to compare and characterize the differences between the CRED and Klimisch evaluation methods. A total of 75 risk assessors from 12 countries participated. Results show that the CRED evaluation method provides a more detailed and transparent evaluation of reliability and relevance than the Klimisch method. Ring test participants perceived it to be less dependent on expert judgement, more accurate and consistent, and practical regarding the use of criteria and time needed for performing an evaluation.ConclusionsWe conclude that the CRED evaluation method is a suitable replacement for the Klimisch method, and that its use may contribute to an improved harmonization of hazard and risk assessments of chemicals across different regulatory frameworks.

Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP): An Online Resource for Evaluating and Reporting In Vivo (Eco)Toxicity Studies

ABSTRACT (Eco)toxicity studies conducted according to internationally standardized test guidelines are often considered reliable by default and preferred as key evidence in regulatory risk assessment. At the same time regulatory agencies emphasize the use of all relevant (eco)toxicity data in the risk assessment process, including non-standard studies. However, there is a need to facilitate the use of such studies in regulatory risk assessment. Therefore, we propose a framework that facilitates a systematic and transparent evaluation of the reliability and relevance of (eco)toxicity in vivo studies for health and environmental risk assessment. The framework includes specific criteria to guide study evaluation, as well as a color-coding tool developed to aid the application of these criteria. In addition we provide guidance intended for researchers on how to report non-standard studies to ensure that they meet regulatory requirements. The intention of the evaluating and reporting criteria is to increase the usability of all relevant data that may fill information gaps in chemical risk assessments. The framework is publically available online, free of charge, at the Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP) website: www.scirap.org. The aim of this article is to present the framework and resources available at the SciRAP website.