Suchergebnisse

Assessment of the potential of compounds to cause harm to the aquatic environment is an integral part 8 of the REACH legislation. To reduce the number of vertebrate and invertebrate animals required for 9 this analysis alternative approaches have been promoted. Category formation and read-across have 10 been applied widely to predict toxicity. A key approach to grouping for environmental toxicity is the 11 Verhaar scheme which uses rules to classify compounds into one of four mechanistic categories. 12 These categories provide a mechanistic basis for grouping and any further predictive modelling. A 13 computational implementation of the Verhaar scheme is available in Toxtree v2.6. The work 14 presented herein demonstrates how modifications to the implementation of Verhaar between version 15 1.5 and 2.6 of Toxtree have improved performance by reducing the number of incorrectly classified 16 compounds. However, for the datasets used in this analysis, version 2.6 classifies more compounds as 17 outside of the domain of the model. Further amendments to the classification rules have been 18 implemented here using a post-processing filter encoded as a KNIME workflow. This results in fewer 19 compounds being classified as outside of the model domain, further improving the predictivity of the 20 scheme. The utility of the modification described herein is demonstrated through building quality, 21 mechanism-specific Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) models for the compounds 22 within specific mechanistic categories.

The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) convened a 'Blue Sky Workshop' on new ideas for non-animal approaches to predict repeated-dose systemic toxicity. The aim of the Workshop was to formulate strategic ideas to improve and increase the applicability, implementation and acceptance of modern non-animal methods to determine systemic toxicity. The Workshop concluded that good progress is being made to assess repeated dose toxicity without animals taking advantage of existing knowledge in toxicology, thresholds of toxicological concern, adverse outcome pathways and read-across workflows. These approaches can be supported by New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) utilising modern molecular technologies and computational methods. Recommendations from the Workshop were based around the needs for better chemical safety assessment: how to strengthen the evidence base for decision making; to develop, standardise and harmonise NAMs for human toxicity; and the improvement in the applicability and acceptance of novel techniques. "Disruptive thinking" is required to reconsider chemical legislation, validation of NAMs and the opportunities to move away from reliance on animal tests. Case study practices and data sharing, ensuring reproducibility of NAMs, were viewed as crucial to the improvement of non-animal test approaches for systemic toxicity.

In silico models are used to predict toxicity and molecular properties in chemical safety assessment, gaining widespread regulatory use under a number of legislations globally. This study has rationalised previously published criteria to evaluate quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) in terms of their uncertainty, variability and potential areas of bias, into ten assessment components, or higher level groupings. The components have been mapped onto specific regulatory uses (i.e. data gap filling for risk assessment, classification and labelling, and screening and prioritisation) identifying different levels of uncertainty that may be acceptable for each. Twelve published QSARs were evaluated using the components, such that their potential use could be identified. High uncertainty was commonly observed with the presentation of data, mechanistic interpretability, incorporation of toxicokinetics and the relevance of the data for regulatory purposes. The assessment components help to guide strategies that can be implemented to improve acceptability of QSARs through the reduction of uncertainties. It is anticipated that model developers could apply the assessment components from the model design phase (e.g. through problem formulation) through to their documentation and use. The application of the components provides the possibility to assess QSARs in a meaningful manner and demonstrate their fitness-for-purpose against pre-defined criteria.

The use of in silico tools within the drug development process to predict a wide range of properties including absorption, distribution, metabolism, elimination and toxicity has become increasingly important due to changes in legislation and both ethical and economic drivers to reduce animal testing. Whilst in silico tools have been used for decades there remains reluctance to accept predictions based on these methods particularly in regulatory settings. This apprehension arises in part due to lack of confidence in the reliability, robustness and applicability of the models. To address this issue we propose a scheme for the verification of in silico models that enables end users and modellers to assess the scientific validity of models in accordance with the principles of good computer modelling practice. We report here the implementation of the scheme within the Innovative Medicines Initiative project "eTOX" (electronic toxicity) and its application to the in silico models developed within the frame of this project.

The use of in silico tools within the drug development process to predict a wide range of properties including absorption, distribution, metabolism, elimination and toxicity has become increasingly important due to changes in legislation and both ethical and economic drivers to reduce animal testing. Whilst in silico tools have been used for decades there remains reluctance to accept predictions based on these methods particularly in regulatory settings. This apprehension arises in part due to lack of confidence in the reliability, robustness and applicability of the models. To address this issue we propose a scheme for the verification of in silico models that enables end users and modellers to assess the scientific validity of models in accordance with the principles of good computer modelling practice. We report here the implementation of the scheme within the Innovative Medicines Initiative project "eTOX" (electronic toxicity) and its application to the in silico models developed within the frame of this project.

Grouping of substances and utilizing read-across of data within those groups represents an important data gap filling technique for chemical safety assessments. Categories/analogue groups are typically developed based on structural similarity and, increasingly often, also on mechanistic (biological) similarity. While read-across can play a key role in complying with legislations such as the European REACH regulation, the lack of consensus regarding the extent and type of evidence necessary to support it often hampers its successful application and acceptance by regulatory authorities. Despite a potentially broad user community, expertise is still concentrated across a handful of organizations and individuals. In order to facilitate the effective use of read-across, this document aims to summarize the state-of-the-art, summarizes insights learned from reviewing ECHA published decisions as far as the relative successes/pitfalls surrounding read-across under REACH and compile the relevant activities and guidance documents. Special emphasis is given to the available existing tools and approaches, an analysis of ECHA's published final decisions associated with all levels of compliance checks and testing proposals, the consideration and expression of uncertainty, the use of biological support data and the impact of the ECHA Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF) published in 2015.

The number of anthropogenic chemicals, manufactured, by-products, metabolites and abiotically formed transformation products, counts to hundreds of thousands, at present. Thus, humans and wildlife are exposed to complex mixtures, never one chemical at a time and rarely with only one dominating effect. Hence there is an urgent need to develop strategies on how exposure to multiple hazardous chemicals and the combination of their effects can be assessed. A workshop, "Advancing the Assessment of Chemical Mixtures and their Risks for Human Health and the Environment" was organized in May 2018 together with Joint Research Center in Ispra, EU-funded research projects and Commission Services and relevant EU agencies. This forum for researchers and policy-makers was created to discuss and identify gaps in risk assessment and governance of chemical mixtures as well as to discuss state of the art science and future research needs. Based on the presentations and discussions at this workshop we want to bring forward the following Key Messages: We are at a turning point: multiple exposures and their combined effects require better management to protect public health and the environment from hazardous chemical mixtures. Regulatory initiatives should be launched to investigate the opportunities for all relevant regulatory frameworks to include prospective mixture risk assessment and consider combined exposures to (real-life) chemical mixtures to humans and wildlife, across sectors. Precautionary approaches and intermediate measures (e.g. Mixture Assessment Factor) can already be applied, although, definitive mixture risk assessments cannot be routinely conducted due to significant knowledge and data gaps. A European strategy needs to be set, through stakeholder engagement, for the governance of combined exposure to multiple chemicals and mixtures. The strategy would include research aimed at scientific advancement in mechanistic understanding and modelling techniques, as well as research to address regulatory and policy needs. Without such a clear strategy, specific objectives and common priorities, research, and policies to address mixtures will likely remain scattered and insufficient.

The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) convened a Partners' Forum on repeated dose toxicity (RDT) testing to identify synergies between industrial sectors and stakeholders along with opportunities to progress these in existing research frameworks. Although RTD testing is not performed across all industrial sectors, the OECD accepted tests can provide a rich source of information and play a pivotal role for safety decisions relating to the use of chemicals. Currently there are no validated alternatives to repeated dose testing and a direct one-to-one replacement is not appropriate. However, there are many projects and initiatives at the international level which aim to implement various aspects of replacement, reduction and refinement (the 3Rs) in RDT testing. Improved definition of use, through better problem formulation, aligned to harmonisation of regulations is a key area, as is the more rapid implementation of alternatives into the legislative framework. Existing test designs can be optimised to reduce animal use and increase information content. Greater use of exposure-led decisions and improvements in dose selection will be beneficial. In addition, EPAA facilitates sharing of case studies demonstrating the use of Next Generation Risk Assessment applying various New Approach Methodologies to assess RDT.