NAM-supported read-across: From case studies to regulatory guidance in safety assessment.

IF 5.8
ALTEX Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.14573/altex.2010062
Costanza Rovida, Sylvia E Escher, Matthias Herzler, Susanne H Bennekou, Hennicke Kamp, Dinant E Kroese, Lidka Maslankiewicz, Martijn J Moné, Grace Patlewicz, Nisha Sipes, Leon Van Aerts, Andrew White, Takashi Yamada, Bob Van de Water
{"title":"NAM-supported read-across: From case studies to regulatory guidance in safety assessment.","authors":"Costanza Rovida,&nbsp;Sylvia E Escher,&nbsp;Matthias Herzler,&nbsp;Susanne H Bennekou,&nbsp;Hennicke Kamp,&nbsp;Dinant E Kroese,&nbsp;Lidka Maslankiewicz,&nbsp;Martijn J Moné,&nbsp;Grace Patlewicz,&nbsp;Nisha Sipes,&nbsp;Leon Van Aerts,&nbsp;Andrew White,&nbsp;Takashi Yamada,&nbsp;Bob Van de Water","doi":"10.14573/altex.2010062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of new approach methodologies (NAMs) in support of read-across (RAx) approaches for regulatory purposes is a main goal of the EU-ToxRisk project. To bring this forward, EU-ToxRisk partners convened a workshop in close collaboration with regulatory representatives from key organizations including European regulatory agencies, such as the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), as well as the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS), national agencies from several European countries, Japan, Canada and the USA, as well as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). More than a hundred people actively participated in the discussions, bringing together diverse viewpoints across academia, regulators and industry. The discussion was organized starting from five practical cases of RAx applied to specific problems that offered the oppor-tunity to consider real examples. There was general consensus that NAMs can improve confidence in RAx, in particular in defining category boundaries as well as characterizing the similarities/dissimilarities between source and target substances. In addition to describing dynamics, NAMs can be helpful in terms of kinetics and metabolism that may play an important role in the demonstration of similarity or dissimilarity among the members of a category. NAMs were also noted as effective in providing quanti-tative data correlated with traditional no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) used in risk assessment, while reducing the uncertainty on the final conclusion. An interesting point of view was the advice on calibrating the number of new tests that should be carefully selected, avoiding the allure of \"the more, the better\". Unfortunately, yet unsurprisingly, there was no single approach befitting every case, requiring careful analysis delineating the optimal approach. Expert analysis and assessment of each specific case is still an important step in the process.</p>","PeriodicalId":520550,"journal":{"name":"ALTEX","volume":" ","pages":"140-150"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ALTEX","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2010062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

The use of new approach methodologies (NAMs) in support of read-across (RAx) approaches for regulatory purposes is a main goal of the EU-ToxRisk project. To bring this forward, EU-ToxRisk partners convened a workshop in close collaboration with regulatory representatives from key organizations including European regulatory agencies, such as the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), as well as the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS), national agencies from several European countries, Japan, Canada and the USA, as well as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). More than a hundred people actively participated in the discussions, bringing together diverse viewpoints across academia, regulators and industry. The discussion was organized starting from five practical cases of RAx applied to specific problems that offered the oppor-tunity to consider real examples. There was general consensus that NAMs can improve confidence in RAx, in particular in defining category boundaries as well as characterizing the similarities/dissimilarities between source and target substances. In addition to describing dynamics, NAMs can be helpful in terms of kinetics and metabolism that may play an important role in the demonstration of similarity or dissimilarity among the members of a category. NAMs were also noted as effective in providing quanti-tative data correlated with traditional no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) used in risk assessment, while reducing the uncertainty on the final conclusion. An interesting point of view was the advice on calibrating the number of new tests that should be carefully selected, avoiding the allure of "the more, the better". Unfortunately, yet unsurprisingly, there was no single approach befitting every case, requiring careful analysis delineating the optimal approach. Expert analysis and assessment of each specific case is still an important step in the process.

nama支持的解读:从案例研究到安全评估的监管指导。
使用新的方法方法(NAMs)来支持跨读(RAx)方法以达到监管目的是EU-ToxRisk项目的主要目标。为此,欧盟- toxrisk合作伙伴召集了一个研讨会,与来自主要组织的监管代表密切合作,包括欧洲监管机构,如欧洲化学品管理局(ECHA)和欧洲食品安全局(EFSA),以及消费者安全科学委员会(SCCS),来自几个欧洲国家,日本,加拿大和美国的国家机构,以及经济合作与发展组织(OECD)。一百多人积极参与了讨论,汇集了学术界、监管机构和行业的不同观点。讨论从RAx应用于具体问题的五个实际案例开始,为考虑实际示例提供了机会。普遍的共识是,NAMs可以提高对RAx的信心,特别是在确定类别边界以及描述源物质和目标物质之间的相似/不同之处方面。除了描述动力学之外,NAMs在动力学和代谢方面也很有帮助,这可能在展示类别成员之间的相似性或差异性方面发挥重要作用。研究还指出,NAMs在提供与风险评估中使用的传统未观察到的不良影响水平(NOAELs)相关的定量数据方面也很有效,同时减少了最终结论的不确定性。一个有趣的观点是关于校准新测试数量的建议,这些测试应该仔细选择,避免“越多越好”的诱惑。不幸的是,没有一种方法适合每一种情况,需要仔细分析描绘最佳方法。专家对每个具体案例的分析和评估仍然是这一过程中的重要步骤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信