| Literature DB >> 35058784 |
Abdulkarim Najjar1, Andreas Schepky1, Christopher-Tilman Krueger1, Matthew Dent2, Sophie Cable2, Hequn Li2, Sebastien Grégoire3, Laurene Roussel3, Audrey Noel-Voisin3, Nicola J Hewitt4, Estefania Cardamone4.
Abstract
Ethical and legal considerations have led to increased use of non-animal methods to evaluate the safety of chemicals for human use. We describe the development and qualification of a physiologically-based kinetics (PBK) model for the cosmetic UV filter ingredient, homosalate, to support its safety without the need of generating further animal data. The intravenous (IV) rat PBK model, using PK-Sim®, was developed and validated using legacy in vivo data generated prior to the 2013 EU animal-testing ban. Input data included literature or predicted physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties. The refined IV rat PBK model was subject to sensitivity analysis to identify homosalate-specific sensitive parameters impacting the prediction of Cmax (more sensitive than AUC(0-∞)). These were then considered, together with population modeling, to calculate the confidence interval (CI) 95% Cmax and AUC(0-∞). Final model parameters were established by visual inspection of the simulations and biological plausibility. The IV rat model was extrapolated to oral administration, and used to estimate internal exposures to doses tested in an oral repeated dose toxicity study. Next, a human PBK dermal model was developed using measured human in vitro ADME data and a module to represent the dermal route. Model performance was confirmed by comparing predicted and measured values from a US-FDA clinical trial (Identifier: NCT03582215, https://clinicaltrials.gov/). Final exposure estimations were obtained in a virtual population and considering the in vitro and input parameter uncertainty. This model was then used to estimate the Cmax and AUC(0-24 h) of homosalate according to consumer use in a sunscreen. The developed rat and human PBK models had a good biological basis and reproduced in vivo legacy rat and human clinical kinetics data. They also complied with the most recent WHO and OECD recommendations for assessing the confidence level. In conclusion, we have developed a PBK model which predicted reasonably well the internal exposure of homosalate according to different exposure scenarios with a medium to high level of confidence. In the absence of in vivo data, such human PBK models will be the heart of future completely non-animal risk assessments; therefore, valid approaches will be key in gaining their regulatory acceptance. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier, NCT03582215.Entities:
Keywords: UV filter; dermal application; homosalate; physiologically-based kinetics models; plasma concentration
Year: 2022 PMID: 35058784 PMCID: PMC8763688 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.802514
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pharmacol ISSN: 1663-9812 Impact factor: 5.810
Physicochemical properties of homosalate [taken from the REACH dossier (ECHA 2020)].
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| Log POW | 6.34 at 40°C |
| Boiling point | 295.1°C at 101.3 kPa |
| Melting point | < -20°C at 101.3 kPa |
| Vapor pressure | 0.015 Pa at 25°C |
| Molecular weight | 262.344 |
| Water solubility | 0.4 mg/ lL at 25°C |
| pKa | 8.1 ± 0.3 at 20°C |
| Relative density at 20°C relative to water at 4°C | 1.0512 (1.050–1.053) |
Homosalate parameters used for rat and human model building. Values were obtained from human based in vitro assays from the literature, collected from the SCCS report on homosalate 2007 (SCCP, 2007) or newly generated data (unpublished). NA = not applicable.
| Property | Rat | Human |
|---|---|---|
| Dermal bioavailability | ||
| SCCS report | NA | 2% ( |
| CRL Dermal penetration | NA | 3.86% ( |
| CRL Dermal penetration plus 1 SD | NA | 5.3% (Finlayson, 2021) |
| Oral bioavailability | ||
| A Conservative approach | 50% (assumption, SCCS default) (adjusted Fa = 81%) | NA |
| Model-based estimation | Fa = 100%, Fb = 83% | NA |
| Distribution | ||
| Tissue:plasma partition coefficient | Rodgers and Rowland ( | Rodgers and Rowland ( |
| Cellular permeabilities | Charge dependent ( | Charge dependent ( |
| Fraction unbound (Fu) | 2 ± 0.2% ( | 2 ± 0.2% ( |
| Elimination | ||
| Total plasma clearance (CLs) | 6 L/ h/ kg ( | NA |
| CLint, liver (primary human hepatocytes) | NA | 59.6 ± 2.7 μL min−1.106 cells−1 |
| | NA | 11.64 ± 0.53 min |
| Transporters Substrate | No ( | No ( |
FIGURE 1Predicted versus observed (blue circles) concentration-time profile of homosalate after an IV dose of 0.5 mg/ kg. Profiles were generated using (A) default values and (B) optimized values. The blue circles represent measured values and the red line denoted a simulated profile.
FIGURE 2The output of the sensitivity analyses of Cmax values for the (A) rat-IV PBK model (Dose: 0.5 mg/ kg, single) and (B) human dermal PBK model (dose 103 μg/ cm2, single). The y-axis represents the ratio of the relative change of Cmax and the relative variation of the input parameter denoted in the x-axis. Parameters with sensitivities less than absolute 0.1 are not listed. Blood to plasma P = blood to plasma permeability; Fu = fraction unbound; K = partition coefficient; Periportal-pls-int P = Periportal-plasma-interstitial permeability; plasma to blood P = plasma to blood permeability; SBFR = specific blood flow rate; SF = scale factor.
FIGURE 3Predicted mean (closed circles) and CI95% (crosses) versus observed (open circles) Cmax (A) and AUC(0-∞) (B) of homosalate after IV doses of 0.5, 2 and 5 mg/ kg to rats. Predictions were generated using optimized input values. The CI95% (red lines) and CI5% (blue lines) are also included.
Predicted kinetics parameters of homosalate in rats after repeated oral administration.
| Rat-oral, bioavailability 50%, mg/kg/day | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60 | 120 | 300 | 750 | |
| Cmax: mean, CI (5–95)%, (ng/ml) | 932.4 (769.21–1192) | 1837.8 (1512–2339) | 4905 (4084–6188.8) | 11543 (9581–14545) |
| AUC(0–24): mean, CI (5–95)%, (ng.h/ml) | 16174.05 (13295.64–20953.58) | 31979.89 (26443.22–40847.898) | 84295 (70787–104639) | 200744 (167901–250263) |
Impact of the dermal delivery value on the estimated Cmax of homosalate after a single dermal administration. For each scenario, a single dose of 10% homosalate was applied to the whole-body surface (17500 cm2) at 103 μg/ cm2/ day. The values for the Day 1 kinetics.
| Dermal delivery (% of the applied dose) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | 3.86% | 5.3% | |
| Dermal delivery of the dermal model: cumulative amount (Q) over 24 h (µg/cm2) | 2.07 | 4 | 5.46 |
| Cmax (ng/ml) mean | 2.38 | 4.63 | 6.3 |
| Cmax (ng/ml) CI95% | 4.13 | 8.04 | 10.92 |
| AUC(0-24h) (ng.h/ml) mean | 49.39 | 95.26 | 130.40 |
| AUC(0-24h) (ng.h/ml) CI95% | 84.75 | 163.48 | 223.76 |
FIGURE 4Simulated concentration-time profile of homosalate (A) over 24 h after a single application, where the dermal penetration was estimated to be 2.5% (this scenario mimics that tested by Matta et al. (2020)), and (B) over 30 days of repeated dermal exposure, where the dermal penetration was estimated to be 5.3% of the applied dose (this scenario mimics the dosing for the safety assessment). Values are shown for the mean and the CI (5–95)%. The application was of 10% homosalate applied to the human whole-body.
Estimated kinetics parameters of homosalate after repeated dermal exposure over 30 days and different dermal penetration potential. For each scenario, 10% homosalate was applied to the whole-body surface (17500 cm2) twice a day (18 g cream per day, 103 μg/ cm2/ day). The same set of the influencing homosalate-specific input parameters and the population modeling were implemented to calculate the Cmax uncertainty. The values for the Day 30 kinetics.
| Dermal penetration (% of the applied dose) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 | 2.5 | 3.86 | 5.3 | |
| Cmax (mean) (ng/ml) | 5.22 | 6.65 | 9.94 | 13.62 |
| Cmax (CI5-95%) (ng/ml) | 3.16–8.17 | 4.02–10.4 | 6.01–15.53 | 8.24–21.27 |
| AUC(0–24): (mean) (ng.h/ml) | 119.81 | 153.02 | 230.96 | 316.49 |
| AUC(0–24): (CI5-95%) (ng.h/ml) | 72.6–187.09 | 92.72–238.96 | 139.92–360.68 | 191.73–494.26 |
FIGURE 5An overview of the development of the PBK models, together with the associated assessments for model qualification and the derivation of the MoIE.