Regulatory Toxicology - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Regulatory toxicology l.jpg
Download
1 / 30

  • 677 Views
  • Updated On :
  • Presentation posted in: Pets / Animals

Regulatory Toxicology. James Swenberg, D.V.M., Ph.D. Acute Toxicity Studies. Single dose - rat, mouse (5/sex/dose), dog, monkey (1/sex/dose) 14 day observation In-life observations (body wt., food consumption, clinical observations) Necropsy . Acute LD50 Values vs Toxicity.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

Regulatory Toxicology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Regulatory toxicology l.jpg

Regulatory Toxicology

James Swenberg, D.V.M., Ph.D.


Acute toxicity studies l.jpg

Acute Toxicity Studies

  • Single dose - rat, mouse (5/sex/dose), dog, monkey (1/sex/dose)

  • 14 day observation

  • In-life observations (body wt., food consumption, clinical observations)

  • Necropsy


Acute ld50 values vs toxicity l.jpg

Acute LD50 Values vs Toxicity


Acute toxicity studies4 l.jpg

Acute Toxicity Studies

  • Repeated dose studies (usually 14 days) - rat, mouse (5-10/sex/dose), dog, monkey (2/sex/dose)

  • In-life observations

  • Necropsy

  • Histopathology

  • Clinical pathology (optional)


Subacute toxicity l.jpg

Subacute Toxicity

  • 28 day study (3 doses and control)

  • Species - rat (10/sex/dose), dog or monkey (2/sex/dose)

  • In-life observations

  • Clinical pathology

  • Necropsy

  • Histopathology


Subchronic toxicity l.jpg

Subchronic Toxicity

  • 13 week study +/- 4 wk recovery (3 doses and control)

  • Species - rat (10/sex/dose), dog or monkey (2/sex/dose)

  • In-life observations (+/- ophthamology)

  • Clinical pathology

  • Necropsy

  • Histopathology

  • Used to set doses for carcinogenicity studies


Chronic toxicity l.jpg

Chronic Toxicity

  • 1 year study +/- 4-13 wk recovery (3 doses and control)

  • Species - rat (10-15/sex/dose), dog or monkey (2-3 /sex/dose)

  • In-life observations including ophthalmology

  • Necropsy

  • Histopathology


Carcinogenicity study l.jpg

Carcinogenicity Study

  • 2 years (3 doses and control)

  • Species - rats and mice (50/sex/dose)

  • In-life observations

  • Toxicokinetic studies

  • Clinical pathology (rats, optional)

  • Necropsy

  • Histopathology


Carcinogenicity study evaluation issues l.jpg

Survival

Body weight

Variability of endpoints

Pathology Working Group

MTD

Statistics vs biology

Dose-response

Mechanistic factors

Carcinogenicity Study Evaluation Issues


Mtd issue l.jpg

MTD ISSUE

  • The Maximum Tolerated Dose is defined as the highest dose of a chemical or drug that can be administered for the animal’s life without causing excessive toxicity or decreasing survival (except due to tumor induction).


Current mtd debate l.jpg

Current MTD Debate

  • “Normal physiology, homeostasis and detoxification or repair mechanisms may be overwhelmed and cancer, which otherwise might not have occurred, is induced or promoted.”

  • OSTP, 1985


Current debate l.jpg

Current Debate

  • “More than two-thirds of the carcinogenic effects detected in feeding studies would have been missed had the high dose been reduced from the estimated MTD to 1/2 the MTD.”

  • Haseman, FAAT, 1985


Mtd issue13 l.jpg

MTD Issue

  • The problem is not testing for carcinogenic potential at the Maximum Tolerated Dose, it is how those data are used in risk assessment. The proper interpretation and use requires an understanding of the mechanism(s) of action.


Overview l.jpg

Overview

  • The integration of metabolism, toxicity, pathology and mechanism is playing a much greater role today than ever before. A better understanding of these areas is essential for proper regulation of chemicals and drugs. It can also play an important role in the development of backup drugs and chemicals.


General approaches to risk assessment l.jpg

General Approaches To Risk Assessment

  • Qualitative approach using scientific judgment

  • Quantitative approach using safety factors

  • Quantitative approach using mathematical models

  • Quantitative approach using linear extrapolation

  • Biologically-based quantitative risk assessment


Cancer risk assessment l.jpg

Cancer Risk Assessment

  • Population risks for environmental carcinogens are usually set at one additional cancer per 100,000 or 1,000,000 individuals

  • Occupational risks are frequently much higher, with one additional cancer per 1,000 workers being not uncommon


Hazard identification l.jpg

Hazard Identification

  • A qualitative risk assessment

  • Does an agent have the potential to increase the incidence of cancer under any conditions

  • Hazard Characterization takes into consideration the conditions under which the cancer was induced


Dose response assessment l.jpg

Dose-Response Assessment

  • The relationship between dose and response (cancer incidence)

  • Two sets of data are usually available

    • Data in the observable range

    • Extrapolation to responses below the observable range


Exposure assessment l.jpg

Exposure Assessment

  • EPA uses the cumulative dose received over a lifetime

  • This is expressed as the average daily exposure

  • Occupational exposures are usually based on exposure during the work week


Risk characterization l.jpg

Risk Characterization

  • Provides an overall conclusion and confidence of risk for the risk manager

  • Gives the assumptions made

  • Explains the uncertainties

  • Outlines the data gaps


1986 epa cancer risk assessment guidelines l.jpg

1986 EPA Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines


Bradford hill criteria for cancer causation l.jpg

Consistency

Strength

Specificity

Temporality

Coherence

Dose Response

Biological Plausibility

Experimental Support

Analogy

Bradford Hill Criteriafor Cancer Causation


Ipcs epa framework for evaluating mechanistic data l.jpg

Introduction

Postulated mode of action

Key events

Dose-response relationship

Temporal association

Strength, consistency and specificity of association with key events

Biological plausibility and coherence

Other modes of action

Assessment of mode of action

Uncertainties, inconsistencies and data gaps

IPCS/EPA Framework for Evaluating Mechanistic Data


Slide26 l.jpg

Systematic Characterization of Comprehensive

Exposure-Dose-Response Continuum and the Evolution of Protective to Predictive Dose-Response Estimates


Helpful web sites l.jpg

Helpful Web Sites

  • http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/

  • www.fda.gov/cder/

  • www.ovpr.uga.edu/qau/index.html


Risk assessment assignments l.jpg

Risk Assessment Assignments

  • Review the Guidelines for Cancer Risk Assessment, March 2005 at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/

  • We will compare these guidelines with the 1986 Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines on Friday.

  • We will also discuss the Draft Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Cancer Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens on Monday.

  • We will DISCUSS the issues in the next two class periods. It will NOT be lectures.


Risk assessment assignments friday monday l.jpg

Risk Assessment AssignmentsFriday & Monday

  • Hazard Identification vs Hazard Characterization

  • Extrapolation: Linearized multistage vs Biologically-based vs Linear vs Non-linear

  • Framework analysis of Mode of Action

  • Dose-response assessment: Extrapolation within and below the observable data

  • Susceptible populations

  • Use of defaults

  • Why not use safety factor?

  • Uncertainties


Risk assessment assignments monday l.jpg

Risk Assessment AssignmentsMonday

  • Factors that affect early-life susceptibility

  • Evidence for increased early-life susceptibility

  • Mode of action vs default in early-life susceptibility

  • Quantitative effects of early-life exposure on risk assessment

  • Uncertainties associated with the supplemental guidance

  • Science vs science policy


  • Login