Silvia Casati1. 1. Directorate F - Health, Consumers and Reference Materials, Chemicals Safety and Alternative Methods Unit, EU Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL ECVAM), Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Ispra, Italy.
Abstract
The concept of Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA) has been advanced by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries to enable a progressive shift from traditional chemical assessments largely based on the observation of the adverse effect in animal models, using individual methods or predefined batteries of standard toxicity tests, to assessment strategies integrating diverse lines of evidence. The flexible nature of IATA allows the inclusion of mechanistic data generated with non-animal methods and with new technologies (e.g. high-throughput and high content methods). The assessment process within IATA is typically conducted through weight-of-evidence which inevitably includes the elements of subjective expert judgement. For these reasons, IATA cannot be fully harmonized across sectors and countries. Nevertheless, some of the IATA components, such as defined approaches, which consist of a fixed data interpretation procedure (DIP) applied to data generated with a defined set of information sources, can be harmonized. The focus of this MiniReview is to provide an illustration of the differences between the IATA developed so far in the areas of regulatory toxicology, and ongoing activities related to the international harmonization of defined approaches that rely on multiple non-animal information sources.
The concept of Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA) has been advanced by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries to enable a progressive shift from traditional chemical assessments largely based on the observation of the adverse effect in animal models, using individual methods or predefined batteries of standard toxicity tests, to assessment strategies integrating diverse lines of evidence. The flexible nature of IATA allows the inclusion of mechanistic data generated with non-animal methods and with new technologies (e.g. high-throughput and high content methods). The assessment process within IATA is typically conducted through weight-of-evidence which inevitably includes the elements of subjective expert judgement. For these reasons, IATA cannot be fully harmonized across sectors and countries. Nevertheless, some of the IATA components, such as defined approaches, which consist of a fixed data interpretation procedure (DIP) applied to data generated with a defined set of information sources, can be harmonized. The focus of this MiniReview is to provide an illustration of the differences between the IATA developed so far in the areas of regulatory toxicology, and ongoing activities related to the international harmonization of defined approaches that rely on multiple non-animal information sources.
Authors: Sebastian Hoffmann; Elisa Aiassa; Michelle Angrish; Claire Beausoleil; Frederic Y Bois; Laura Ciccolallo; Peter S Craig; Rob B M De Vries; Jean Lou C M Dorne; Ingrid L Druwe; Stephen W Edwards; Chantra Eskes; Marios Georgiadis; Thomas Hartung; Aude Kienzler; Elisabeth A Kristjansson; Juleen Lam; Laura Martino; Bette Meek; Rebecca L Morgan; Irene Munoz-Guajardo; Pamela D Noyes; Elena Parmelli; Aldert Piersma; Andrew Rooney; Emily Sena; Kristie Sullivan; José Tarazona; Andrea Terron; Kris Thayer; Jan Turner; Jos Verbeek; Didier Verloo; Mathieu Vinken; Sean Watford; Paul Whaley; Daniele Wikoff; Kate Willett; Katya Tsaioun Journal: ALTEX Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 6.250
Authors: Derik E Haggard; R Woodrow Setzer; Richard S Judson; Katie Paul Friedman Journal: Regul Toxicol Pharmacol Date: 2019-10-29 Impact factor: 3.271