Literature DB >> 21167275

Report from the EPAA workshop: in vitro ADME in safety testing used by EPAA industry sectors.

K Schroeder1, K D Bremm, N Alépée, J G M Bessems, B Blaauboer, S N Boehn, C Burek, S Coecke, L Gombau, N J Hewitt, J Heylings, J Huwyler, M Jaeger, M Jagelavicius, N Jarrett, H Ketelslegers, I Kocina, J Koester, J Kreysa, R Note, A Poth, M Radtke, V Rogiers, J Scheel, T Schulz, H Steinkellner, M Toeroek, M Whelan, P Winkler, W Diembeck.   

Abstract

There are now numerous in vitro and in silico ADME alternatives to in vivo assays but how do different industries incorporate them into their decision tree approaches for risk assessment, bearing in mind that the chemicals tested are intended for widely varying purposes? The extent of the use of animal tests is mainly driven by regulations or by the lack of a suitable in vitro model. Therefore, what considerations are needed for alternative models and how can they be improved so that they can be used as part of the risk assessment process? To address these issues, the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) working group on prioritization, promotion and implementation of the 3Rs research held a workshop in November, 2008 in Duesseldorf, Germany. Participants included different industry sectors such as pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, industrial- and agro-chemicals. This report describes the outcome of the discussions and recommendations (a) to reduce the number of animals used for determining the ADME properties of chemicals and (b) for considerations and actions regarding in vitro and in silico assays. These included: standardisation and promotion of in vitro assays so that they may become accepted by regulators; increased availability of industry in vivo kinetic data for a central database to increase the power of in silico predictions; expansion of the applicability domains of in vitro and in silico tools (which are not necessarily more applicable or even exclusive to one particular sector) and continued collaborations between regulators, academia and industry. A recommended immediate course of action was to establish an expert panel of users, developers and regulators to define the testing scope of models for different chemical classes. It was agreed by all participants that improvement and harmonization of alternative approaches is needed for all sectors and this will most effectively be achieved by stakeholders from different sectors sharing data.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21167275     DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2010.12.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicol In Vitro        ISSN: 0887-2333            Impact factor:   3.500


  4 in total

1.  The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA): promoting alternative methods in Europe and beyond.

Authors:  Gwenole Cozigou; Jonathan Crozier; Coenraad Hendriksen; Irene Manou; Tzutzuy Ramirez-Hernandez; Renate Weissenhorn
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.232

Review 2.  Alternative approaches for identifying acute systemic toxicity: Moving from research to regulatory testing.

Authors:  Jon Hamm; Kristie Sullivan; Amy J Clippinger; Judy Strickland; Shannon Bell; Barun Bhhatarai; Bas Blaauboer; Warren Casey; David Dorman; Anna Forsby; Natàlia Garcia-Reyero; Sean Gehen; Rabea Graepel; Jon Hotchkiss; Anna Lowit; Joanna Matheson; Elissa Reaves; Louis Scarano; Catherine Sprankle; Jay Tunkel; Dan Wilson; Menghang Xia; Hao Zhu; David Allen
Journal:  Toxicol In Vitro       Date:  2017-01-06       Impact factor: 3.500

Review 3.  Application of Gut Cell Models for Toxicological and Bioactivity Studies of Functional and Novel Foods.

Authors:  Martin Trapecar; Avrelija Cencic
Journal:  Foods       Date:  2012-12-13

4.  Assessment of the Intestinal Absorption of Higher Olefins by the Everted Gut Sac Model in Combination with In Silico New Approach Methodologies.

Authors:  Quan Shi; Juan-Carlos Carrillo; Michael G Penman; Jason Manton; Elena Fioravanzo; Robert H Powrie; Clifford R Elcombe; Tilly Borsboom-Patel; Yuan Tian; Hua Shen; Peter J Boogaard
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2022-07-13       Impact factor: 3.973

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.