Use of toxicokinetics to support chemical evaluation: Informing high dose selection and study interpretation

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Volumn 62, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 241-247

  Creton, Stuart ^a   Saghir, Shakil A ^b   Bartels, Michael J ^b   Billington, Richard ^c   Bus, James S ^b   Davies, Will ^d   Dent, Matthew P ^e   Hawksworth, Gabrielle M ^f   Parry, Simon ^g   Travis, Kim Z ^h  

^a National Centre for the Replacement   (United Kingdom)

^b DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY   (United States)

^c Dow AgroSciences Ltd   (United Kingdom)

^d HUNTINGDON LIFE SCIENCES   (United Kingdom)

^e UNILEVER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^g GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United Kingdom)

^h JEALOTT S HILL INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

3Rs; ADME; Blood sampling; Dose selection; Risk assessment; Toxicokinetics

Indexed keywords

ABSORPTION; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MONITORING; BLOOD SAMPLING; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; CHEMICAL INDUSTRY; HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; HUMAN; MASS SPECTROMETRY; MAXIMUM PLASMA CONCENTRATION; MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; STEADY STATE; TOXICITY TESTING; TOXICOKINETICS;

ANIMALS; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; FEMALE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; MALE; PHARMACOKINETICS; RATS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 84856427598     PISSN: 02732300     EISSN: 10960295     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.12.005     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Barfield M., et al. Application of dried blood spots combined with HPLC-MS/MS for the quantification of acetaminophen in toxicokinetic studies. J. Chromatogr. B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2008, 870:32-37.
2. Barton H.A., et al. The acquisition and application of absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) data in agricultural chemical safety assessments. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2006, 36:9-35
3. Billington R., et al. The mouse carcinogenicity study is no longer a scientifically justifiable core data requirement for the safety assessment of pesticides. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2010, 40:35-49.
4. Boobis A.R., et al. IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a cancer mode of action for humans. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2006, 36:781-792.
5. Boobis A.R., et al. IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a noncancer mode of action for humans. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2008, 38:87-96.
6. Buckley L.A., Dorato M.A. High dose selection in general toxicity studies for drug development: a pharmaceutical industry perspective. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2009, 54:301-307.
7. Bus J.S., Becker R.A. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a view from the chemical industry. Toxicol. Sci. 2009, 112:297-302.
8. Chasseaud L.F. The importance of pharmacokinetic/toxicokinetic and metabolic information in carcinogenicity study design. Drug Inform. J. 1992, 26:445-455.
9. CHMP, 2005. Guideline on the evaluation of control samples in nonclinical safety studies: checking for contamination with the test substance. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), European Medicines Agency.
10. Counts J.L., Goodman J.I. Principles underlying dose selection for, and extrapolation from, the carcinogen bioassay: dose influences mechanism. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 1995, 21:418-421.
11. Creton S., et al. Application of toxicokinetics to improve chemical risk assessment: implications for the use of animals. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2009, 55:291-299.
12. Devine H. Preventing the contamination of control samples by test article during toxicokinetic investigations. Toxicol. Sci. 2006, 90:119.
13. EC, 2010. DG SANCO/11802/1010 Rev.0 Draft guidance to EC 1107/2009.
14. ECHA, 2008. Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Chapter R.7.12: Guidance on toxicokinetics. European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki.
15. EPA, 2010. U., Memorandum written by Taylor L and Metzger M on November 30, 2010: 2,4-D: review of extended 1-generation reproduction study and dose-range-finding and pharmacokinetic titration studies. Decision No. 431951. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
16. ICH, 1995. CPMP/ICH/384/95. Note for guidance on toxicokinetics: a guidance for assessing systemic exposure in toxicology studies.
17. ICH, 2008. Guidance on nonclinical safety studies for the conduct of human clinical trials and marketing authorization for pharmaceuticals M3(R2). Draft International Conference on Harmonisation Consensus Guideline. Accessed on November 02, 2011. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm129520.htm.
18. McCoy, A.T., et al., submitted for publication. TK Modeler version 1: a Microsoft® Excel®-based modeling software for the prediction of diurnal plasma concentration for toxicokinetic use. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.
19. McFadden, L.G., et al., submitted for publication. Statistical methodology to determine nonlinearity of systemic exposure across doses. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.
20. McGregor D., et al. Guidance for the classification of carcinogens under the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2010, 40:245-285.
21. Morgan D.G., et al. The application of toxicokinetic data to dosage selection in toxicology studies. Toxicol. Pathol. 1994, 22:112-123.
22. Nicholls I., et al. The presence of drug in control samples during toxicokinetic investigations - a Novartis perspective. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2005, 42:172-178.
23. OECD, 2010a. Test Guideline 417: Toxicokinetics OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. OECD, Paris.
24. OECD, 2010b. Draft guidance document No. 116 on the design and conduct of chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies, supporting TG 451, 452 and 453. 17 December 2010. Series on Testing and Assessment. OECD, Paris.
25. OECD, 2011a. Test Guideline 443: Extended One Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. OECD, Paris.
26. OECD, 2011b. Draft guidance document 151 in support of OECD test guideline 443 on an extended one generation reproductive toxicity study: November 2011. Series on Testing and Assessment. OECD, Paris.
27. Rhomberg L.R., et al. Issues in the design and interpretation of chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies in rodents: approaches to dose selection. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2007, 37:729-837.
28. Saghir, S.A., et al., submitted for publication. Assessment of diurnal systemic dose (toxicokinetics) of agrochemicals in regulatory toxicity testing - an integrated approach without additional animals use. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.
29. Saghir S.A., et al. A dietary dose range-finding and toxicokinetic (TK) study of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) in adult CRL:CD(SD) rats and their offspring: I. Toxicokinetics. Toxicologist 2009, 108:1161.
30. Saghir S.A., et al. Strategies to assess systemic exposure of chemicals in subchronic/chronic diet and drinking water studies. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2006, 211:245-260.
31. Saghir S.A., et al. Integration of toxicokinetics into guideline studies of a new agrochemical. Toxicologist 2011, 120:2107.
32. Slikker W., et al. Dose-dependent transitions in mechanisms of toxicity: case studies. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2004, 201:226-294.
33. Slikker W., et al. Dose-dependent transitions in mechanisms of toxicity. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2004, 201:203-225.
34. Timchalk C. Comparative inter-species pharmacokinetics of phenoxyacetic acid herbicides and related organic acids. Evidence that the dog is not a relevant species for evaluation of human health risk. Toxicology 2004, 200:1-19.
35. Yeary R.A. Urinary excretion of 2,4-D in commercial lawn specialists. Appl. Ind. Hyg. 1996, 3:119-121.