Literature DB >> 32334038

Use of the kinetically-derived maximum dose concept in selection of top doses for toxicity studies hampers proper hazard assessment and risk management.

Minne B Heringa1, Nicole H P Cnubben1, Wout Slob1, Marja E J Pronk1, Andre Muller1, Marjolijn Woutersen2, Betty C Hakkert1.   

Abstract

The KMD (kinetically-derived maximum dose) is an increasingly advocated concept that uses toxicokinetic data in the top dose selection for toxicity testing. Application of this concept may have serious regulatory implications though, especially in the European Union. The basic assumption is that the relationship between internal and external dose (IED) shows an inflection point where linearity transits into non-linearity due to saturation of underlying processes; top doses in toxicity tests should not be above the inflection point, provided human exposures are well below this point. A critical analysis of the KMD concept and its underlying assumptions shows, however, that the IED relationship is non-linear over the whole dose range, without any point of inflection. The KMD concept thus aims to estimate a non-existing point, rendering it invalid for use in toxicity testing. Moreover, the concept ignores the key question in toxicology: What kind of toxic effects occur at which doses? These and several other reservations against the KMD concept are discussed and illustrated with three existing applications of the KMD approach. Hence, we recommend to abolish the KMD concept for selecting top doses in toxicity testing. This requires the updating of regulations, guidance documents and OECD test guidelines.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3Rs; Classification; Hazard and risk assessment; Inflection point; KMD; Kinetically derived maximum dose; Top dose selection

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32334038     DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2020.104659

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol        ISSN: 0273-2300            Impact factor:   3.271


  5 in total

1.  Incorporating human exposure information in a weight of evidence approach to inform design of repeated dose animal studies.

Authors:  Kelly Lowe; Jeffrey Dawson; Katherine Phillips; Jeffrey Minucci; John F Wambaugh; Hua Qian; Tharacad Ramanarayanan; Peter Egeghy; Brandall Ingle; Rachel Brunner; Elizabeth Mendez; Michelle Embry; Yu-Mei Tan
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2021-10-29       Impact factor: 3.271

2.  Opportunities and challenges related to saturation of toxicokinetic processes: Implications for risk assessment.

Authors:  Yu-Mei Tan; Hugh A Barton; Alan Boobis; Rachel Brunner; Harvey Clewell; Rhian Cope; Jeffrey Dawson; Jeanne Domoradzki; Peter Egeghy; Pankaj Gulati; Brandall Ingle; Nicole Kleinstreuer; Kelly Lowe; Anna Lowit; Elizabeth Mendez; David Miller; Jeffrey Minucci; James Nguyen; Alicia Paini; Monique Perron; Katherine Phillips; Hua Qian; Tharacad Ramanarayanan; Fiona Sewell; Philip Villanueva; John Wambaugh; Michelle Embry
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2021-10-28       Impact factor: 3.598

Review 3.  Principles of dose-setting in toxicology studies: the importance of kinetics for ensuring human safety.

Authors:  C J Borgert; C Fuentes; L D Burgoon
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2021-10-08       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

5.  A novel approach to calculating the kinetically derived maximum dose.

Authors:  Lyle D Burgoon; Claudio Fuentes; Christopher J Borgert
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 5.153

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.