Manon Beekhuijzen , Emily Richmond , Jason Manton , Pragati S. Coder , Katy Goyak , Rashin Ghaffari , Susan L. Makris , Steven Van Cruchten , Leah Zorrilla , Shermaine Mitchell-Ryan
{"title":"Review of dose setting for the extended one-generation reproductive toxicity studies (OECD TG 443): Considerations on ECHA's dose level selection recommendations","authors":"Manon Beekhuijzen , Emily Richmond , Jason Manton , Pragati S. Coder , Katy Goyak , Rashin Ghaffari , Susan L. Makris , Steven Van Cruchten , Leah Zorrilla , Shermaine Mitchell-Ryan","doi":"10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105665","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>During 2020, The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) began evaluating the OECD Test Guideline 443: Extended One Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study (EOGRTS) to analyze specific aspects related to study design, conduct and toxicological findings. A significant outcome of this ECHA evaluation focused on adequate dose level selection. Subsequently, ECHA published recommendations for DART studies, however, these recommendations seemingly do not align with the principles of the 3Rs, animal welfare or human safety goals, specifically, regarding three aspects. First, the requirement to segregate testing for sexual function and fertility from the ability to produce normally developing offspring increases the risk of inadequate identification of postnatal hazards for development and sexual function and fertility, therefore failing human health protection goals. Second, the current ECHA high-dose level setting recommendations for EOGRTS exceed the MTD (Maximum Tolerated Dose), and therefore compromise the interpretation of the biological response relative to the intrinsic effect of the chemical under evaluation. Third, the combination of these aspects will result in an increase in the number of animals tested, increasing animal welfare concerns.</p><p>This paper reflects the consensus of subject matter experts, professional, and scientific societies who have authored and signed on to this statement. The signatories encourage ECHA to adopt a revised science-driven approach to the dose selection criteria that strikes a balance between regulatory vigilance and scientific pragmatism.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":20852,"journal":{"name":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","volume":"151 ","pages":"Article 105665"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230024001065","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
During 2020, The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) began evaluating the OECD Test Guideline 443: Extended One Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study (EOGRTS) to analyze specific aspects related to study design, conduct and toxicological findings. A significant outcome of this ECHA evaluation focused on adequate dose level selection. Subsequently, ECHA published recommendations for DART studies, however, these recommendations seemingly do not align with the principles of the 3Rs, animal welfare or human safety goals, specifically, regarding three aspects. First, the requirement to segregate testing for sexual function and fertility from the ability to produce normally developing offspring increases the risk of inadequate identification of postnatal hazards for development and sexual function and fertility, therefore failing human health protection goals. Second, the current ECHA high-dose level setting recommendations for EOGRTS exceed the MTD (Maximum Tolerated Dose), and therefore compromise the interpretation of the biological response relative to the intrinsic effect of the chemical under evaluation. Third, the combination of these aspects will result in an increase in the number of animals tested, increasing animal welfare concerns.
This paper reflects the consensus of subject matter experts, professional, and scientific societies who have authored and signed on to this statement. The signatories encourage ECHA to adopt a revised science-driven approach to the dose selection criteria that strikes a balance between regulatory vigilance and scientific pragmatism.
期刊介绍:
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology publishes peer reviewed articles that involve the generation, evaluation, and interpretation of experimental animal and human data that are of direct importance and relevance for regulatory authorities with respect to toxicological and pharmacological regulations in society. All peer-reviewed articles that are published should be devoted to improve the protection of human health and environment. Reviews and discussions are welcomed that address legal and/or regulatory decisions with respect to risk assessment and management of toxicological and pharmacological compounds on a scientific basis. It addresses an international readership of scientists, risk assessors and managers, and other professionals active in the field of human and environmental health.
Types of peer-reviewed articles published:
-Original research articles of relevance for regulatory aspects covering aspects including, but not limited to:
1.Factors influencing human sensitivity
2.Exposure science related to risk assessment
3.Alternative toxicological test methods
4.Frameworks for evaluation and integration of data in regulatory evaluations
5.Harmonization across regulatory agencies
6.Read-across methods and evaluations
-Contemporary Reviews on policy related Research issues
-Letters to the Editor
-Guest Editorials (by Invitation)