Facilitating the use of non-standard in vivo studies in health risk assessment of chemicals: A proposal to improve evaluation criteria and reporting

Journal of Applied Toxicology

Volumn 34, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 607-617

  Beronius, Anna ^a,b   Molander, Linda ^b   Rudén, Christina ^b   Hanberg, Annika ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^b STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Chemicals; Health risk assessment; Non standard studies; OECD; Relevance; Reliability; Reporting guidelines; Study evaluation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; EVALUATION STUDY; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HEALTH HAZARD; IN VIVO STUDY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE; STUDY DESIGN; TOXICITY TESTING; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; UNCERTAINTY;

GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTS; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 84899632688     PISSN: 0260437X     EISSN: 10991263     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jat.2991     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Ågerstrand M, Kuster A, Bachmann J, Breitholtz M, Ebert I, Rechenberg B, Rudén C. 2011. Reporting and evaluation criteria as means towards a transparent use of ecotoxicity data for environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals. Environ. Pollut. 159 (10): 2487-2492.
2. Alcock RE, Macgillivray BH, Busby JS. 2011. Understanding the mismatch between the demands of risk assessment and practice of scientists--the case of Deca-BDE. Environ. Int. 37 (1): 216-225.
3. Bero LA. 2013. Tobacco industry manipulation of research. In Late Lessons from Early Warnings: Science, Precaution, Innovation. European Environment Agency; 151-178. Available on-line at: http://www.eea.europa.eu.
4. Beronius A, Johansson N, Rudén C, Hanberg A. 2013. The influence of study design and sex-differences on results from developmental neurotoxicity studies of bisphenol A, implications for toxicity testing. Toxicology 311 (1-2): 13-26.
5. Beronius A, Rudén C, Håkansson H, Hanberg A. 2010. Risk to all or none? A comparative analysis of controversies in the health risk assessment of Bisphenol A. Reprod. Toxicol. 29 (2): 132-146.
6. Durda JL, Preziosi DV. 2000. Data quality evaluation of toxicological studies used to derive ecotoxicological benchmarks. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 6: 747-765.
7. EC. 2006. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC.
8. ECHA. 2011a. European Chemicals Agency. Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Part B: Hazard assessment. Available on-line at: http://www.echa.europa.eu.
9. ECHA. 2011b. European Chemicals Agency. Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Chapter R.4: Evaluation of available information. Available on-line at: http://www.echa.europa.eu.
10. ECHA. 2012. European Chemicals Agency. How to report robust study summaries. Practical Guide 3. Version 2.0. Available on-line at: http://www.echa.europa.eu.
11. ECHA. 2013. European Chemicals Agency. Evaluation under REACH, Progress Report 2012. Available on-line at: http://www.echa.europa.eu.
12. EFSA. 2006. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food on a request from the Commission related to 2, 2-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)propane (bisphenol A). Available on-line at: http://www.efsa.europa.eu.
13. EFSA. 2010. European Food Safety Authority Guidance: Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision making. EFSA Journal 8 (6): 90. Available on-line at: http://www.efsa.europa.eu.
14. Hengstler JG, Foth H, Gebel T, Kramer PJ, Lilienblum W, Schweinfurth H, Volkel W, Wollin KM, Gundert-Remy U. 2011. Critical evaluation of key evidence on the human health hazards of exposure to bisphenol A. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 41 (4): 263-291.
15. Hobbs DA, Warne MS, Markich SJ. 2005. Evaluation of criteria used to assess the quality of aquatic toxicity data. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 1 (3): 174-180.
16. Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. 2010. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 8 (6): e1000412.
17. Klimisch HJ, Andreae M, Tillmann U. 1997. A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 25 (1): 1-5.
18. Kortenkamp A, Martin O, Faust M, Evans R, McKinlay R, Orton F, Rosivatz E. 2012. State of the Art Assessment of Endocrine Disrupters - Final Report. EU Commission DG Environment.
19. Krimsky S. 2005. The weight of scientific evidence in policy and law. Am. J. Public Health 95 (Suppl. 1): S129-136.
20. Küster A, Bachmann J, Brandt U, Ebert I, Hickmann S, Klein-Goedicke J, Maack G, Schmitz S, Thumm E, Rechenberg B. 2009. Regulatory demands on data quality for the environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 55 (3): 276-280.
21. Linkov I, Loney D, Cormier S, Satterstrom FK, Bridges T. 2009. Weight-of-evidence evaluation in environmental assessment: review of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sci. Total Environ. 407 (19): 5199-5205.
22. Michaels D. 2008. Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. Oxford University Press, Inc.: New York.
23. Myers JP, vom Saal FS, Akingbemi BT, Arizono K, Belcher S, Colborn T, Chahoud I, Crain DA, Farabollini F, Guillette LJ, Hassold Jr T, Ho SM, Hunt PA, Iguchi T, Jobling S, Kanno J, Laufer H, Marcus M, McLachlan JA, Nadal A, Oehlmann J, Olea N, Palanza P, Parmigiani S, Rubin BS, Schoenfelder G, Sonnenschein C, Soto AM, Talsness CE, Taylor JA, Vandenberg LN, Vandenbergh JG, Vogel S, Watson CS, Welshons WV, Zoeller RT. 2009. Why public health agencies cannot depend on good laboratory practices as a criterion for selecting data: the case of bisphenol A. Environ. Health Perspect. 117 (3): 309-315.
24. NTP. 2008. National Toxicology Program Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction. Monograph on the potential human reproductive and developmental effects of bisphenol A. Available on-line at: http://www.cerhr.niehs.nih.gov.
25. OECD. 2001. OECD Guideline for the testing of chemicals nr 416. Two-generation reproduction toxicity study. Available on-line at: http://www.OECD-ilibrary.org.
26. OECD. 2005. Manual for the assessment of chemicals. Chapter 3: Data evaluation. Available on-line at: http://www.oecd.org.
27. OECD. 2007. OECD Guideline for the testing of chemicals nr 426. Developmental neurotoxicity study. Available on-line at: http://www.OECD-ilibrary.org.
28. OECD. 2009a. OECD Guideline for the testing of chemicals nr 451. Carcinogenicity studies. Available on-line at: http://www.OECD-ilibrary.org.
29. OECD. 2009b. OECD Guideline for the testing of chemicals nr 452. Chronic toxicity studies. Available on-line at: http://www.OECD-ilibrary.org.
30. OECD. 2011. OECD Guideline for the testing of chemicals nr 443. Extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study. Available on-line at: http://www.OECD-ilibrary.org.
31. Rudén C, Hansson SO. 2008. Evidence-based toxicology: sound science in new disguise. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 14 (4): 299-306.
32. Rudén C. 2001. Interpretations of primary carcinogenicity data in 29 trichloroethylene risk assessments. Toxicology 169: 209-225.
33. SCENIHR. 2012. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. Memorandum on the use of the scientific literature for human health risk assessment purposes - weighing of evidence and expression of uncertainty. Available on-line at: http://www.ec.europa.eu.
34. Schneider K, Schwarz M, Burkholder I, Kopp-Schneider A, Edler L, Kinsner-Ovaskainen A, Hartung T, Hoffmann S. 2009. ToxRTool, a new tool to assess the reliability of toxicological data. Toxicol. Lett. 189 (2): 138-144.
35. Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. 2010. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med. 8: 24.
36. Tluczkiewicz I, Batke M, Kroese D, Buist H, Aldenberg T, Paune E, Grimm H, Kuhne R, Schuurmann G, Mangelsdorf I, Escher SE. 2013. The OSIRIS Weight of Evidence approach: ITS for the endpoints repeated-dose toxicity (RepDose ITS). Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.. Published on-line ahead of print, doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.02.004.
37. US EPA. 1999. Determining the adequacy of existing data. Available on-line at: http://www.usepa.gov.
38. US NRC. 2011. US National Research Council Institute for Animal Research. Guidance for the Description of Animal Research in Scientific Publications. Available from the National Academies Press on-line at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13241.
39. Wandall B. 2004. Values in science and risk assessment. Toxicol. Lett. 152 (3): 265-272.
40. Weed DL. 2005. Weight of evidence: a review of concept and methods. Risk Anal. 25 (6): 1545-1557.
41. Westerholm E, Schenk L. 2014. Comparative analysis of toxicological evaluations for dermal exposure performed under two different EU regulatory frameworks. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 68: 51-58.
42. Zoeller RT, Brown TR, Doan LL, Gore AC, Skakkebaek NE, Soto AM, Woodruff TJ, Vom Saal FS. 2012. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals and public health protection: a statement of principles from The Endocrine Society. Endocrinology 153 (9): 4097-4110.