鉴定和分类低分子量化学品(LMWCs)作为呼吸致敏剂的临床数据的使用和局限性:改进建议

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 TOXICOLOGY
Critical Reviews in Toxicology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-09 DOI:10.1080/10408444.2024.2433222
Julia Scheel, Nora L Krutz, Ramya Rajagopal, Nikaeta Sadekar, Stuart Hindle, Christina Hickey, Clive Campbell, Phil Botham
{"title":"鉴定和分类低分子量化学品(LMWCs)作为呼吸致敏剂的临床数据的使用和局限性:改进建议","authors":"Julia Scheel, Nora L Krutz, Ramya Rajagopal, Nikaeta Sadekar, Stuart Hindle, Christina Hickey, Clive Campbell, Phil Botham","doi":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2433222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While progress has been made in recent years, there are still no suitable and accepted <i>in silico</i>, <i>in vitro,</i> or <i>in vivo</i> models that can be used to accurately predict whether a chemical substance has the intrinsic property to cause immune-mediated chemical respiratory allergy, typically manifested as allergic asthma or allergic rhinitis which represents a severe health hazard. Regulatory authorities have relied primarily on clinical evidence (case reports, clinical databases, worker exposure studies) to classify substances as respiratory sensitizers, but this evidence can lack a proven immunological mechanism which is necessary to identify substances which can cause life-long sensitization and clinically relevant allergic symptoms in the respiratory tract in an exposed population (such respiratory allergens may be considered as \"true\" sensitizers, in analogy to the definition of skin sensitization, and in contrast to respiratory irritants). In light of this, the European Center for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals convened a Task Force to evaluate the types of clinical methods and data sources and the implications of relying on such data for regulatory decision making from a scientific perspective. Recognizing that there are benefits and important insights from using such data, significant shortcomings were identified. With clinical work being focused on treatment and diagnosis of individual patients, the approaches and methods used for clinical guidance, diagnostics and reporting have serious limitations in proving the respiratory sensitization potential of a specific chemical, definitely restricting their suitability in deriving legally binding hazard classifications for human health protection. Even within the current broader regulatory definition of respiratory sensitization, a robust assessment and sound evidence of causation by a specific chemical seems mandatory in order to avoid misclassifications. Application of a systematic weight-of-evidence approach is considered suitable to determine the level of confidence, including a thorough assessment of the specificity or non-specificity of observed bronchial hyperreactivity. Recommendations proposed in this publication may not only aid industry and regulators in their decision making but also facilitate a further exchange between stakeholders to improve the data used to (a) more precisely identify true respiratory sensitizers to effectively protect human health, (b) aid evaluation of potential predictive models, and (c) encourage regulators to clarify guidance and to consider a re-evaluation of the current regulatory definition of respiratory sensitizers.</p>","PeriodicalId":10869,"journal":{"name":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":"27-54"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use and limitations of clinical data in the identification and classification of low molecular weight chemicals (LMWCs) as respiratory sensitizers: recommendations for improvement.\",\"authors\":\"Julia Scheel, Nora L Krutz, Ramya Rajagopal, Nikaeta Sadekar, Stuart Hindle, Christina Hickey, Clive Campbell, Phil Botham\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10408444.2024.2433222\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>While progress has been made in recent years, there are still no suitable and accepted <i>in silico</i>, <i>in vitro,</i> or <i>in vivo</i> models that can be used to accurately predict whether a chemical substance has the intrinsic property to cause immune-mediated chemical respiratory allergy, typically manifested as allergic asthma or allergic rhinitis which represents a severe health hazard. Regulatory authorities have relied primarily on clinical evidence (case reports, clinical databases, worker exposure studies) to classify substances as respiratory sensitizers, but this evidence can lack a proven immunological mechanism which is necessary to identify substances which can cause life-long sensitization and clinically relevant allergic symptoms in the respiratory tract in an exposed population (such respiratory allergens may be considered as \\\"true\\\" sensitizers, in analogy to the definition of skin sensitization, and in contrast to respiratory irritants). In light of this, the European Center for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals convened a Task Force to evaluate the types of clinical methods and data sources and the implications of relying on such data for regulatory decision making from a scientific perspective. Recognizing that there are benefits and important insights from using such data, significant shortcomings were identified. With clinical work being focused on treatment and diagnosis of individual patients, the approaches and methods used for clinical guidance, diagnostics and reporting have serious limitations in proving the respiratory sensitization potential of a specific chemical, definitely restricting their suitability in deriving legally binding hazard classifications for human health protection. Even within the current broader regulatory definition of respiratory sensitization, a robust assessment and sound evidence of causation by a specific chemical seems mandatory in order to avoid misclassifications. Application of a systematic weight-of-evidence approach is considered suitable to determine the level of confidence, including a thorough assessment of the specificity or non-specificity of observed bronchial hyperreactivity. Recommendations proposed in this publication may not only aid industry and regulators in their decision making but also facilitate a further exchange between stakeholders to improve the data used to (a) more precisely identify true respiratory sensitizers to effectively protect human health, (b) aid evaluation of potential predictive models, and (c) encourage regulators to clarify guidance and to consider a re-evaluation of the current regulatory definition of respiratory sensitizers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Reviews in Toxicology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"27-54\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Reviews in Toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2024.2433222\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"TOXICOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2024.2433222","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然近年来取得了进展,但仍没有合适和公认的硅、体外或体内模型可用于准确预测化学物质是否具有引起免疫介导的化学呼吸道过敏的内在特性,通常表现为过敏性哮喘或变应性鼻炎,这代表了严重的健康危害。监管当局主要依靠临床证据(病例报告、临床数据库、工人接触研究)将物质分类为呼吸道致敏剂,但这些证据可能缺乏经证实的免疫学机制,而这种机制是识别暴露人群中可能导致终身致敏和临床相关呼吸道过敏症状的物质所必需的(此类呼吸道过敏原可被视为“真正的”致敏剂)。类比于皮肤致敏的定义,而与呼吸道刺激物相反)。鉴于此,欧洲生态毒理学和化学品毒理学中心召集了一个特别工作组,从科学的角度评估临床方法和数据来源的类型,以及依赖这些数据进行监管决策的影响。虽然认识到使用这些数据有好处和重要的见解,但也发现了重大的缺点。由于临床工作的重点是对个别患者的治疗和诊断,用于临床指导、诊断和报告的方法和方法在证明特定化学品的呼吸道致敏潜力方面存在严重局限性,这无疑限制了它们在得出具有法律约束力的危害分类以保护人类健康方面的适用性。即使在目前更广泛的呼吸致敏的监管定义中,为了避免错误分类,似乎必须对特定化学物质的因果关系进行强有力的评估和可靠的证据。应用系统的证据权重方法被认为适合于确定置信度水平,包括对观察到的支气管高反应性的特异性或非特异性进行彻底评估。本出版物中提出的建议不仅可以帮助行业和监管机构做出决策,而且还可以促进利益攸关方之间的进一步交流,以改进用于(a)更准确地识别真正的呼吸道致敏剂以有效保护人类健康,(b)有助于评估潜在的预测模型,以及(c)鼓励监管机构澄清指导并考虑重新评估目前对呼吸道致敏剂的监管定义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Use and limitations of clinical data in the identification and classification of low molecular weight chemicals (LMWCs) as respiratory sensitizers: recommendations for improvement.

While progress has been made in recent years, there are still no suitable and accepted in silico, in vitro, or in vivo models that can be used to accurately predict whether a chemical substance has the intrinsic property to cause immune-mediated chemical respiratory allergy, typically manifested as allergic asthma or allergic rhinitis which represents a severe health hazard. Regulatory authorities have relied primarily on clinical evidence (case reports, clinical databases, worker exposure studies) to classify substances as respiratory sensitizers, but this evidence can lack a proven immunological mechanism which is necessary to identify substances which can cause life-long sensitization and clinically relevant allergic symptoms in the respiratory tract in an exposed population (such respiratory allergens may be considered as "true" sensitizers, in analogy to the definition of skin sensitization, and in contrast to respiratory irritants). In light of this, the European Center for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals convened a Task Force to evaluate the types of clinical methods and data sources and the implications of relying on such data for regulatory decision making from a scientific perspective. Recognizing that there are benefits and important insights from using such data, significant shortcomings were identified. With clinical work being focused on treatment and diagnosis of individual patients, the approaches and methods used for clinical guidance, diagnostics and reporting have serious limitations in proving the respiratory sensitization potential of a specific chemical, definitely restricting their suitability in deriving legally binding hazard classifications for human health protection. Even within the current broader regulatory definition of respiratory sensitization, a robust assessment and sound evidence of causation by a specific chemical seems mandatory in order to avoid misclassifications. Application of a systematic weight-of-evidence approach is considered suitable to determine the level of confidence, including a thorough assessment of the specificity or non-specificity of observed bronchial hyperreactivity. Recommendations proposed in this publication may not only aid industry and regulators in their decision making but also facilitate a further exchange between stakeholders to improve the data used to (a) more precisely identify true respiratory sensitizers to effectively protect human health, (b) aid evaluation of potential predictive models, and (c) encourage regulators to clarify guidance and to consider a re-evaluation of the current regulatory definition of respiratory sensitizers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
1.70%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Critical Reviews in Toxicology provides up-to-date, objective analyses of topics related to the mechanisms of action, responses, and assessment of health risks due to toxicant exposure. The journal publishes critical, comprehensive reviews of research findings in toxicology and the application of toxicological information in assessing human health hazards and risks. Toxicants of concern include commodity and specialty chemicals such as formaldehyde, acrylonitrile, and pesticides; pharmaceutical agents of all types; consumer products such as macronutrients and food additives; environmental agents such as ambient ozone; and occupational exposures such as asbestos and benzene.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信