Literature DB >> 28774667

The current status of exposure-driven approaches for chemical safety assessment: A cross-sector perspective.

Fiona Sewell1, Manoj Aggarwal2, Gerald Bachler3, Alan Broadmeadow4, Nichola Gellatly5, Emma Moore4, Sally Robinson6, Martijn Rooseboom3, Alexander Stevens7, Claire Terry8, Natalie Burden5.   

Abstract

For the purposes of chemical safety assessment, the value of using non-animal (in silico and in vitro) approaches and generating mechanistic information on toxic effects is being increasingly recognised. For sectors where in vivo toxicity tests continue to be a regulatory requirement, there has been a parallel focus on how to refine studies (i.e. reduce suffering and improve animal welfare) and increase the value that in vivo data adds to the safety assessment process, as well as where to reduce animal numbers where possible. A key element necessary to ensure the transition towards successfully utilising both non-animal and refined safety testing is the better understanding of chemical exposure. This includes approaches such as measuring chemical concentrations within cell-based assays and during in vivo studies, understanding how predicted human exposures relate to levels tested, and using existing information on human exposures to aid in toxicity study design. Such approaches promise to increase the human relevance of safety assessment, and shift the focus from hazard-driven to risk-driven strategies similar to those used in the pharmaceutical sectors. Human exposure-based safety assessment offers scientific and 3Rs benefits across all sectors marketing chemical or medicinal products. The UK's National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) convened an expert working group of scientists across the agrochemical, industrial chemical and pharmaceutical industries plus a contract research organisation (CRO) to discuss the current status of the utilisation of exposure-driven approaches, and the challenges and potential next steps for wider uptake and acceptance. This paper summarises these discussions, highlights the challenges - particularly those identified by industry - and proposes initial steps for moving the field forward.
Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  (Toxico)kinetics; 3Rs; Exposure; PBPK; Regulatory; Risk assessment

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28774667     DOI: 10.1016/j.tox.2017.07.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicology        ISSN: 0300-483X            Impact factor:   4.221


  5 in total

1.  In silico approaches in organ toxicity hazard assessment: current status and future needs in predicting liver toxicity.

Authors:  Arianna Bassan; Vinicius M Alves; Alexander Amberg; Lennart T Anger; Scott Auerbach; Lisa Beilke; Andreas Bender; Mark T D Cronin; Kevin P Cross; Jui-Hua Hsieh; Nigel Greene; Raymond Kemper; Marlene T Kim; Moiz Mumtaz; Tobias Noeske; Manuela Pavan; Julia Pletz; Daniel P Russo; Yogesh Sabnis; Markus Schaefer; David T Szabo; Jean-Pierre Valentin; Joerg Wichard; Dominic Williams; David Woolley; Craig Zwickl; Glenn J Myatt
Journal:  Comput Toxicol       Date:  2021-09-09

2.  Key Opportunities to Replace, Reduce, and Refine Regulatory Fish Acute Toxicity Tests.

Authors:  Natalie Burden; Rachel Benstead; Kate Benyon; Mark Clook; Christopher Green; John Handley; Neil Harper; Samuel K Maynard; Chris Mead; Audrey Pearson; Kathryn Ryder; Dave Sheahan; Roger van Egmond; James R Wheeler; Thomas H Hutchinson
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Chem       Date:  2020-08-24       Impact factor: 3.742

3.  Prediction of the dose range for adverse neurological effects of amiodarone in patients from an in vitro toxicity test by in vitro-in vivo extrapolation.

Authors:  Engi Abd El-Hady Algharably; Emma Di Consiglio; Emanuela Testai; Reinhold Kreutz; Ursula Gundert-Remy
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2021-02-19       Impact factor: 5.153

Review 4.  Recommendations on dose level selection for repeat dose toxicity studies.

Authors:  Fiona Sewell; Marco Corvaro; Amanda Andrus; Jonathan Burke; George Daston; Bryan Delaney; Jeanne Domoradzki; Carole Forlini; Maia Louise Green; Thomas Hofmann; Sven Jäckel; Moung Sook Lee; Michael Temerowski; Paul Whalley; Richard Lewis
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2022-04-29       Impact factor: 6.168

Review 5.  In silico prediction of toxicity and its applications for chemicals at work.

Authors:  Kyung-Taek Rim
Journal:  Toxicol Environ Health Sci       Date:  2020-05-14
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.