Incorporating New Approach Methods (NAMs) Data in Dose-response Assessments: The Future is Now!

Overview

Journal J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev

Publisher Informa Healthcare

Specialty Environmental Health

Date 2024 Oct 11

PMID 39390665

Authors

En-Hsuan Lu

Ivan Rusyn

Weihsueh A Chiu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Regulatory dose-response assessments traditionally rely on data and default assumptions. New Approach Methods (NAMs) present considerable opportunities to both augment traditional dose-response assessments and accelerate the evaluation of new/data-poor chemicals. This review aimed to determine the potential utilization of NAMs through a unified conceptual framework that compartmentalizes derivation of toxicity values into five sequential Key Dose-response Modules (KDMs): (1) point-of-departure (POD) determination, (2) test system-to-human (e.g. inter-species) toxicokinetics and (3) toxicodynamics, (4) human population (intra-species) variability in toxicodynamics, and (5) toxicokinetics. After using several "traditional" dose-response assessments to illustrate this framework, a review is presented where existing NAMs, including , , and approaches, might be applied across KDMs. Further, the false dichotomy between "traditional" and NAMs-derived data sources is broken down by organizing dose-response assessments into a matrix where each KDM has Tiers of increasing precision and confidence: Tier 0: Default/generic values, Tier 1: Computational predictions, Tier 2: Surrogate measurements, and Tier 3: Direct measurements. These findings demonstrated that although many publications promote the use of NAMs in KDMs (1) for POD determination and (5) for human population toxicokinetics, the proposed matrix of KDMs and Tiers reveals additional immediate opportunities for NAMs to be integrated across other KDMs. Further, critical needs were identified for developing NAMs to improve dosimetry and quantify test system and human population toxicodynamics. Overall, broadening the integration of NAMs across the steps of dose-response assessment promises to yield higher throughput, less animal-dependent, and more science-based toxicity values for protecting human health.

References

Proenca S, Escher B, Fischer F, Fisher C, Gregoire S, Hewitt N . Effective exposure of chemicals in in vitro cell systems: A review of chemical distribution models. Toxicol In Vitro. 2021; 73:105133. DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2021.105133. View

Franken L, de Winter B, Masman A, Dijk M, Baar F, Tibboel D . Population pharmacodynamic modelling of midazolam induced sedation in terminally ill adult patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2017; 84(2):320-330. PMC: 5777431. DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13442. View

Addicks G, Rowan-Carroll A, Reardon A, Leingartner K, Williams A, Meier M . Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in mixtures show additive effects on transcriptomic points of departure in human liver spheroids. Toxicol Sci. 2023; 194(1):38-52. PMC: 10306399. DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfad044. View

Reardon A, Rowan-Carroll A, Ferguson S, Leingartner K, Gagne R, Kuo B . Potency Ranking of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Using High-Throughput Transcriptomic Analysis of Human Liver Spheroids. Toxicol Sci. 2021; 184(1):154-169. DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfab102. View

Kramer N, Krismartina M, Rico-Rico A, Blaauboer B, Hermens J . Quantifying processes determining the free concentration of phenanthrene in Basal cytotoxicity assays. Chem Res Toxicol. 2012; 25(2):436-45. DOI: 10.1021/tx200479k. View

Wignall J, Muratov E, Sedykh A, Guyton K, Tropsha A, Rusyn I . Conditional Toxicity Value (CTV) Predictor: An Approach for Generating Quantitative Risk Estimates for Chemicals. Environ Health Perspect. 2018; 126(5):057008. PMC: 6071978. DOI: 10.1289/EHP2998. View

Schwartzentruber J, Foskolou S, Kilpinen H, Rodrigues J, Alasoo K, Knights A . Molecular and functional variation in iPSC-derived sensory neurons. Nat Genet. 2017; 50(1):54-61. PMC: 5742539. DOI: 10.1038/s41588-017-0005-8. View

Low Y, Sedykh A, Fourches D, Golbraikh A, Whelan M, Rusyn I . Integrative chemical-biological read-across approach for chemical hazard classification. Chem Res Toxicol. 2013; 26(8):1199-208. PMC: 3818153. DOI: 10.1021/tx400110f. View

Kilpinen H, Goncalves A, Leha A, Afzal V, Alasoo K, Ashford S . Common genetic variation drives molecular heterogeneity in human iPSCs. Nature. 2017; 546(7658):370-375. PMC: 5524171. DOI: 10.1038/nature22403. View

10.

Chebekoue S, Krishnan K . Derivation of internal dose-based thresholds of toxicological concern for occupational inhalation exposure to systemically acting organic chemicals. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2019; 16(4):308-319. DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2019.1568445. View

11.

Krewski D, Saunders-Hastings P, Baan R, Barton-Maclaren T, Browne P, Chiu W . Development of an Evidence-Based Risk Assessment Framework. ALTEX. 2022; 39(4):667-693. PMC: 10080579. DOI: 10.14573/altex.2004041. View

12.

Martin O, Martin S, Kortenkamp A . Dispelling urban myths about default uncertainty factors in chemical risk assessment--sufficient protection against mixture effects?. Environ Health. 2013; 12(1):53. PMC: 3708776. DOI: 10.1186/1476-069X-12-53. View

13.

Hondebrink L, Verboven A, Drega W, Schmeink S, de Groot M, van Kleef R . Neurotoxicity screening of (illicit) drugs using novel methods for analysis of microelectrode array (MEA) recordings. Neurotoxicology. 2016; 55:1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuro.2016.04.020. View

14.

Lobenhofer E, Cui X, Bennett L, Cable P, Merrick B, Churchill G . Exploration of low-dose estrogen effects: identification of No Observed Transcriptional Effect Level (NOTEL). Toxicol Pathol. 2004; 32(4):482-92. DOI: 10.1080/01926230490483324. View

15.

More S, Bampidis V, Benford D, Bragard C, Halldorsson T, Hernandez-Jerez A . Guidance on the use of the Threshold of Toxicological Concern approach in food safety assessment. EFSA J. 2020; 17(6):e05708. PMC: 7009090. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5708. View

16.

Abdo N, Wetmore B, Chappell G, Shea D, Wright F, Rusyn I . In vitro screening for population variability in toxicity of pesticide-containing mixtures. Environ Int. 2015; 85:147-55. PMC: 4773193. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.09.012. View

17.

Axelrad D, Setzer R, Bateson T, Devito M, Dzubow R, Fitzpatrick J . Methods for evaluating variability in human health dose-response characterization. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 2019; 25:1-24. PMC: 6688638. DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2019.1615828. View

18.

Hardin B, Robbins C, Fallah P, Kelman B . The concentration of no toxicologic concern (CoNTC) and airborne mycotoxins. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2009; 72(9):585-98. DOI: 10.1080/15287390802706389. View

19.

Haber L, Maier A, Gentry P, Clewell H, Dourson M . Genetic polymorphisms in assessing interindividual variability in delivered dose. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2002; 35(2 Pt 1):177-97. DOI: 10.1006/rtph.2001.1517. View

20.

Patlewicz G, Ball N, Booth E, Hulzebos E, Zvinavashe E, Hennes C . Use of category approaches, read-across and (Q)SAR: general considerations. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2013; 67(1):1-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.06.002. View