Literature DB >> 2050066

Use of biological markers and pharmacokinetics in human health risk assessment.

D Hattis1.   

Abstract

There are two reasons to connect discussions of biological markers and pharmacokinetics. First, both tend to open up the black box between exposure and effect. Doing this promises more complete scientific understanding than simple input-output analysis, the possibility of better mechanism-based projection of risk beyond the range of possible direct observations, and the possibility of greater sensitivity of analysis, in some cases going from the organism to the cell as the unit of analysis. Second, pharmacokinetic (or similar pharmacodynamic) analysis will often be essential for appropriate interpretation of biological marker information. One needs some sort of dynamic model of the generation and loss of the marker in relation to exposure in order to use a biological marker, either to form a better measure of dosage (either accumulated past dose, or biologically relevant dose), or to make an improved prediction of effect. (For example, the use of a blood cadmium level alone to predict kidney effects might be inferior to predictions based on aggregate past accumulation of cadmium in the kidney, based on the past history of cadmium blood levels x time). Several examples will be discussed of the use of biomarkers and pharmacokinetics in risk assessments for both carcinogenesis and other effects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2050066      PMCID: PMC1519499          DOI: 10.1289/ehp.90-1519499

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Health Perspect        ISSN: 0091-6765            Impact factor:   9.031


  36 in total

1.  The promise of molecular epidemiology for quantitative risk assessment.

Authors:  D B Hattis
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 4.000

2.  Overview of the National Infant Mortality Surveillance (NIMS) project--design, methods, results.

Authors:  C J Hogue; J W Buehler; L T Strauss; J C Smith
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1987 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.792

3.  Acrylamide effects on the macaque visual system. I. Psychophysics and electrophysiology.

Authors:  W H Merigan; E Barkdoll; J P Maurissen; T A Eskin; L W Lapham
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  1985-03       Impact factor: 4.799

4.  The effects of ethylene oxide (EO) exposure on tissue glutathione levels in rats and mice.

Authors:  J A McKelvey; M A Zemaitis
Journal:  Drug Chem Toxicol       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 3.356

5.  Slow axonal transport in acrylamide neuropathy: different abnormalities produced by single-dose and continuous administration.

Authors:  B G Gold; J W Griffin; D L Price
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  A comparison of developmental toxicity evident at term to postnatal growth and survival using ethylene glycol monoethyl ether, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether and ethanol.

Authors:  P J Wier; S C Lewis; K A Traul
Journal:  Teratog Carcinog Mutagen       Date:  1987

7.  Species differences in the formation of butadiene monoxide from 1,3-butadiene.

Authors:  U Schmidt; E Loeser
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  1985-09       Impact factor: 5.153

8.  Epidemiologic support for ethylene oxide as a cancer-causing agent.

Authors:  C Hogstedt; L Aringer; A Gustavsson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1986-03-28       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Species differences in butadiene metabolism between mice and rats evaluated by inhalation pharmacokinetics.

Authors:  R Kreiling; R J Laib; J G Filser; H M Bolt
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  1986-04       Impact factor: 5.153

10.  Species differences in the disposition of inhaled butadiene.

Authors:  J A Bond; A R Dahl; R F Henderson; J S Dutcher; J L Mauderly; L S Birnbaum
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  1986-07       Impact factor: 4.219

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Risk assessment for neurobehavioral toxicity: SGOMSEC joint report.

Authors:  D Hattis; J Glowa; H Tilson; B Ulbrich
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 9.031

Review 2.  Evaluation of health risks for contaminated aquifers.

Authors:  W T Piver; T L Jacobs; M A Medina
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 9.031

Review 3.  The challenge of mechanism-based modeling in risk assessment for neurobehavioral end points.

Authors:  D Hattis
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 9.031

4.  Trends in quantitative cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  S C Morris
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 9.031

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.