Nicholas Ball

Read-across approaches--misconceptions, promises and challenges ahead.

Read-across is a data gap filling technique used within category and analogue approaches. It has been utilized as an alternative approach to address information requirements under various past and present regulatory programs such as the OECD High Production Volume Programme as well as the EUs Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals (REACH) regulation. Although read-across raises a number of expectations, many misconceptions still remain around what it truly represents; how to address its associated justification in a robust and scientifically credible manner; what challenges/issues exist in terms of its application and acceptance; and what future efforts are needed to resolve them. In terms of future enhancements, read-across is likely to embrace more biologically-orientated approaches consistent with the Toxicity in the 21st Century vision (Tox-21c). This Food for Thought article, which is notably not a consensus report, aims to discuss a number of these aspects and, in doing so, to raise awareness of the ongoing efforts and activities to enhance read-across. It also intends to set the agenda for a CAAT read-across initiative in 2014-2015 to facilitate the proper use of this technique.

Toward good read-across practice (GRAP) guidance

Summary Grouping of substances and utilizing read-across of data within those groups represents an important data gap filling technique for chemical safety assessments. Categories/analogue groups are typically developed based on structural similarity and, increasingly often, also on mechanistic (biological) similarity. While read-across can play a key role in complying with legislation such as the European REACH regulation, the lack of consensus regarding the extent and type of evidence necessary to support it often hampers its successful application and acceptance by regulatory authorities. Despite a potentially broad user community, expertise is still concentrated across a handful of organizations and individuals. In order to facilitate the effective use of read-across, this document presents the state of the art, summarizes insights learned from reviewing ECHA published decisions regarding the relative successes/pitfalls surrounding read-across under REACH, and compiles the relevant activities and guidance documents. Special emphasis is given to the available existing tools and approaches, an analysis of ECHAs published final decisions associated with all levels of compliance checks and testing proposals, the consideration and expression of uncertainty, the use of biological support data, and the impact of the ECHA Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF) published in 2015.

Evaluating the sensitization potential of surfactants: Integrating data from the local lymph node assay, guinea pig maximization test, and in vitro methods in a weight-of-evidence approach

An integral part of hazard and safety assessments is the estimation of a chemicals potential to cause skin sensitization. Currently, only animal tests (OECD 406 and 429) are accepted in a regulatory context. Nonanimal test methods are being developed and formally validated. In order to gain more insight into the responses induced by eight exemplary surfactants, a battery of in vivo and in vitro tests were conducted using the same batch of chemicals. In general, the surfactants were negative in the GPMT, KeratinoSens and hCLAT assays and none formed covalent adducts with test peptides. In contrast, all but one was positive in the LLNA. Most were rated as being irritants by the EpiSkin assay with the additional endpoint, IL1-alpha. The weight of evidence based on this comprehensive testing indicates that, with one exception, they are non-sensitizing skin irritants, confirming that the LLNA tends to overestimate the sensitization potential of surfactants. As results obtained from LLNAs are considered as the gold standard for the development of new nonanimal alternative test methods, results such as these highlight the necessity to carefully evaluate the applicability domains of test methods in order to develop reliable nonanimal alternative testing strategies for sensitization testing.

Building scientific confidence in the development and evaluation of read-across

Read-across is an alternative approach exploited to address information requirements for risk assessment and for regulatory programmes such as the European Unions REACH regulation. Whilst read-across approaches are accepted in principle, difficulties still remain in applying them consistently in practice. Recent work within Cefic LRI and ECETOC attempted to summarize the state-of-the-art and identify some of the barriers to broader acceptance of read-across approaches to overcome these. Acceptance is undoubtedly thwarted partly by the lack of a systematic framework to characterize the read-across justification and identify the uncertainties particularly for complex regulatory endpoints such as repeated-dose toxicity or prenatal developmental toxicity. Efforts are underway by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to develop a Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF) and private sector experts have also considered the development of a similar framework. At the same time, mechanistic chemical categories are being proposed which are underpinned by Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs). Currently such frameworks are only focusing on discrete organic substances, though the AOP approach could conceivably be applied to evaluate more complex substances such as mixtures. Here we summarize the deliberations of the Cefic LRI read-across team in characterizing scientific confidence in the development and evaluation of read-across.

The challenge of using read-across within the EU REACH regulatory framework; how much uncertainty is too much? Dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate, an exemplary case study

The use of read-across of data within a group of structurally similar substances potentially allows one to characterise the hazards of a substance without resorting to additional animal studies. However the use of read-across is not without challenges, particularly when used to address the needs of a regulatory programme such as the EU REACH regulation. This paper presents a case study where a previously accepted read-across approach was used to address several data gaps in a REACH registration dossier but was subsequently rejected in part by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), resulting in the requirement to perform a developmental toxicity study in rodents. Using this case study, this paper illustrates some of the practical challenges faced when making use of read-across, particularly with respect to addressing the uncertainty associated with the use of read-across; showcasing the scientific justification and highlighting some of the potential implications/opportunities for future cases.

Comparative testing for the identification of skin-sensitizing potentials of nonionic sugar lipid surfactants.

The Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) is the preferred test for the identification of skin-sensitizing potentials of chemicals in Europe and is also the first choice method within REACH. In the formal validation, only a very few surfactant chemicals were evaluated and SDS was identified as a false positive. In this study, 10 nonionic sugar lipid surfactants were tested in an LLNA, guinea pig maximization test (GPMT) and human repeated insult patch test. Of the 10 surfactants tested in the LLNA, 5 showed stimulation indices above 3.0. Three of five positive reactions were concomitant with signs of skin irritation indicated by an increase in ear thickness. In the GPMT, all test products were classified as nonsensitizers. In human volunteers, no skin reactions suggestive of sensitization were reported. In conclusion, these results are indicative of the LLNA overestimating sensitization potentials for this category of chemicals. This may in part be due to irritant effects generated by these surfactants. Until suitable nonanimal alternative tests obtain regulatory acceptance, use of other tests, e.g. GPMTs, may in cases be justified. Results such as these need be taken into account when developing nonanimal alternative methods to ensure reliable data sets for method validation purposes.

Food for Thought … Read-Across Approaches - Misconceptions, Promises and Challenges Ahead

Read-across is a data gap filling technique used within category and analogue approaches. It has been utilized as an alternative approach to address information requirements under various past and present regulatory programs such as the OECD High Production Volume Programme as well as the EUs Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals (REACH) regulation. Although read-across raises a number of expectations, many misconceptions still remain around what it truly represents; how to address its associated justification in a robust and scientifically credible manner; what challenges/issues exist in terms of its application and acceptance; and what future efforts are needed to resolve them. In terms of future enhancements, read-across is likely to embrace more biologically-orientated approaches consistent with the Toxicity in the 21st Century vision (Tox-21c). This Food for Thought article, which is notably not a consensus report, aims to discuss a number of these aspects and, in doing so, to raise awareness of the ongoing efforts and activities to enhance read-across. It also intends to set the agenda for a CAAT read-across initiative in 2014-2015 to facilitate the proper use of this technique.

Read-across approaches - Misconceptions, promises and challenges ahead

Read-across is a data gap filling technique used within category and analogue approaches. It has been utilized as an alternative approach to address information requirements under various past and present regulatory programs such as the OECD High Production Volume Programme as well as the EUs Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals (REACH) regulation. Although read-across raises a number of expectations, many misconceptions still remain around what it truly represents; how to address its associated justification in a robust and scientifically credible manner; what challenges/issues exist in terms of its application and acceptance; and what future efforts are needed to resolve them. In terms of future enhancements, read-across is likely to embrace more biologically-orientated approaches consistent with the Toxicity in the 21st Century vision (Tox-21c). This Food for Thought article, which is notably not a consensus report, aims to discuss a number of these aspects and, in doing so, to raise awareness of the ongoing efforts and activities to enhance read-across. It also intends to set the agenda for a CAAT read-across initiative in 2014-2015 to facilitate the proper use of this technique.

Global regulatory requirements for mutagenicity assessment in the registration of industrial chemicals

Mutagenicity is an important toxicological endpoint that requires thorough evaluation during the industrial chemical registration process. Regulatory requirements for mutagenicity assessment in registration of industrial chemicals vary in geographic regions (and in some cases by intended application). Here we compile the mutagenicity testing requirements for registration of industrial chemicals from representative geographic regions (in alphabetical order), that is Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, European Union (EU), India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and United States (US). We further discuss the challenges that industry is facing to meet global regulations, for example, different testing requirements among geographic regions, different strategies in follow‐up tests to in vitro positive findings, no‐observed‐adverse‐effect‐levels in genetic toxicity testing, and human relevance of mutagenicity. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 58:345–353, 2017.

Validation of Computational Methods

In this chapter, we provide an overview of how (Quantitative) Structure Activity Relationships, (Q)SARs, are validated and applied for regulatory purposes. We outline how chemical categories are derived to facilitate endpoint specific read-across using tools such as the OECD QSAR Toolbox and discuss some of the current difficulties in addressing the residual uncertainties of read-across. Finally we put forward a perspective of how non-testing approaches may evolve in light of the advances in new and emerging technologies and how these fit within the Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) framework.