The no-observed-adverse-effect-level in drug safety evaluations: Use, issues, and definition(s)

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 265-274

  Dorato, Michael A ^a   Engelhardt, Jeffery A ^b  

^a ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

^b AMGEN INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Adverse; Benchmark dose; Biologically important; Hormesis; Margin of safety; No observed adverse effect level; Toxicologically relevant; Toxicologically significant

Indexed keywords

ACUTE TOXICITY; ARTICLE; CHRONIC TOXICITY; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EXPOSURE; DRUG MANUFACTURE; DRUG SAFETY; GENETIC TOXICOLOGY; HORMESIS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; HUMANS; NO-OBSERVED-ADVERSE-EFFECT LEVEL; RISK ASSESSMENT; XENOBIOTICS;

EID: 22544453881     PISSN: 02732300     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2005.05.004     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. D. Axelrod, K. Burns, D. Davis, and N. vonLarebeke "Hormesis"- an inappropriate extrapolation from the specific to the universal Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 10 2004 335 339
2. D.G. Barnes, and M. Dourson Reference dose (RfD): description and use in health risk assessment Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 8 1988 471 486
3. B.D. Beck, R.B. Conolly, M.L. Dourson, D. Guth, D. Hattis, C. Kimmel, and S.C. Lewis Symposium overview: improvements in quantitative noncancer risk assessment Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 20 1993 1 14
4. L.E. Black, A.M. Bendele, R.A. Bendele, P.M. Zack, and M. Hamilton Regulatory decision strategy for entry of a novel biologic therapeutic with a clinically unmonitorable toxicity into clinical trials: pre-IND meetings and a case example Toxicol. Pathol. 27 1 1999 22 26
5. E.J. Calabrese, B.D. Beck, and W.R. Chappell Does the animal-to-human uncertainty factor incorporate interspecies differences in surface area? Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 15 1992 172 179
6. E.J. Calabrese, and L.A. Baldwin Improved method for selection of the NOAEL Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 19 1994 48 50
7. E.J. Calabrese, and L.A. Baldwin Hormesis as a biological hypothesis Environ. Health Perspect. 106 1 1998 357 362
8. E.J. Calabrese, L.A. Baldwin, and C.D. Holland Hormesis: a highly generalizable and reproducible phenomenon with important implications for risk assessment Risk Anal. 19 2 1999 261 281
9. E.J. Calabrese, and L.A. Baldwin The hormetic dose-response model is more common than the threshold model in toxicology Toxicol. Sci. 71 2003 246 250
10. E.J. Calabrese, and L.A. Baldwin Toxicology rethinks its central belief Nature 42 2003 691 692
11. E.J. Calabrese Hormesis-basic, generalizable, central to toxicology and a method to improve the risk-assessment process Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 10 2004 466 467
12. Calabrese, E.J., 2005. Paradigm lost, paradigm found: the re-emergence of hormesis as a fundamental dose response model in the toxicological sciences. Environ. Pollut., accepted.
13. CHMP, 2004. Position paper on non-clinical safety studies to support clinical trials with a single microdose. CPMP/SWP/2599/02/Rev 1.
14. CPMP, 2002. Points to consider on the need for assessment of reproductive toxicity of human insulin analogues. CPMP/SWP/2600/01Final.
15. M.A. Dorato, and L.A. Buckley Toxicology in the drug discovery and development process S.J. Enna M. Williams J.W. Ferlanny T. Kemakin R.D. Pursolt J.P. Sullivan Current Protocols in Pharmacology 1998 Wiley New York 10.3.1 10.3.30
16. M.A. Dorato, and M.J. Vodicnik The toxicologic assessment of pharmaceutical and biotechnology products A.W. Hayes Principles and Methods of Toxicology fourth ed. 2001 Taylor and Francis New York
17. M.L. Dourson, and J.F. Stara Regulatory history and experimental support of uncertainty (safety) factors Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 3 1983 224 238
18. ECETOC, 2002. Recognition of, and differentiation between, adverse and non-adverse effects in toxicology studies. Technical Report 85.
19. EPA, 1995. The use of the benchmark dose approach in health risk assessment. EPA/630/R-94/007.
20. E.M. Faustman, and G.S. Omenn Risk assessment C.D. Klaassen Cassarett and Doull's Toxicology the Basic Science of Poisons sixth ed. 2001 McGraw-Hill New York 92
21. FDA, 1996. Guidance for industry. Single dose acute toxicity testing for pharmaceuticals. 61FR43934.
22. FDA, Guidance for industry and reviewers (draft), 2002. Estimating the safe starting dose in clinical trials for therapeutics in adult healthy volunteers. Draft Guidance. \CDS029CderGuid3814dft.doc.
23. A.F. Filipsson, S. Sand, J. Nilsson, and K. Victorin The benchmark dose method-review of available models, and recommendations for application in health risk assessment Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 33 5 2003 505 542
24. Hayashi, Y., 1991. The current situation with regard to no effect dose vs no toxic effect dose. In: D'Arcy, P.F., Harron, D.W.G. (Eds.), First International Conference on Harmonization. Brussels, pp. 191-192.
25. A.W. Hayes Principles and methods of toxicology fourth ed. 2001 Taylor and Francis Philadelphia p. 1824
26. Hess, R., 1991. Repeated dose toxicity: industry perspective. In: D'Arcy, P.F., Harron, D.W.G. (Eds.), First International Conference on Harmonization. Brussels, p. 197.
27. ICH Topic S6, 1997. Preclinical safety evaluation of biotechnology- derived pharmaceuticals. ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline.
28. ICH Topic M3(M), 2000. Maintenance of the ICH guideline on non-clinical safety studies for the conduct of human clinical trials for pharmaceuticals. ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline.
29. IPCS, 1999. Environmental Health Criteria 210. Principles of the Assessment of Risks to Human Health from Exposure to Chemicals. World Health Organization, International Programme on Chemical Safety, Geneva, p. 23.
30. A.J. Lehman, and D.G. Fitzhugh 100-Fold margin of safety Assoc. Food Drug Off. USQ Bull. 18 1954 33 35
31. W. Leisenring, and L. Ryan Statistical properties of the NOAEL Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 15 1992 161 171
32. R.W. Lewis, R. Billington, E. Debryune, A. Gamer, B. Lang, and F. Carpanini Recognition of adverse and nonadverse effects in toxicity studies Toxicol. Pathol. 30 1 2002 66 74
33. H. Olson, G. Betton, D. Robinson, K. Thomas, A. Monro, G. Kolaja, P. Lilly, J. Sanders, G. Sipes, W. Bracken, M. Dorato, K. Van Deun, P. Smith, B. Berger, and A. Heller Concordance of the toxicity of pharmaceuticals in humans and animals Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 32 2000 56 67
34. J. Rodericks Hormesis and toxicological risk assessment Toxicol. Sci. 71 2003 134 136
35. C. Temkin, and Lillian Seven defences, the reply to certain calumniations of his enemies H.E. Sigerist Paracelsus, four treatises 1941 The Johns Hopkins Press Baltimore, MD 22
36. P.D. Williams The role of pharmacological profiling in safety assessment Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 12 1990 238 252
37. R.A. Woutersen, D. Jonker, H. Stevenson, J.D. te Biesebeek, and W. Slob The benchmark approach applied to a 28-day toxicity study with rhodorsil silane in rats: the impact of increasing the number of dose groups Food Chem. Toxicol. 39 2001 697 707