1 / 22

Richard Hertzberg Biomathematics Consulting Atlanta, GA Beyond Science and Decisions

Categorical Regression as a Predictive Tool for Determining Risks at Doses above the Reference Dose (RfD). Richard Hertzberg Biomathematics Consulting Atlanta, GA Beyond Science and Decisions From Issue Identification to Dose-Response Assessment Austin, TX March 16, 2010. Overview.

jrita
Download Presentation

Richard Hertzberg Biomathematics Consulting Atlanta, GA Beyond Science and Decisions

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Categorical Regression as a Predictive Tool for Determining Risks atDoses above the Reference Dose (RfD) Richard Hertzberg Biomathematics Consulting Atlanta, GA Beyond Science and Decisions From Issue Identification to Dose-Response Assessment Austin, TX March 16, 2010

  2. Overview • Goal: Estimate risk for dose > RfD • Why RfD and BMD will not work • How categorical regression works • Pros and Cons • Future

  3. The RfD is Limited(pun intended) “If it's zero degrees outside today and it's supposed to be twice as cold tomorrow, how cold is it going to be?” (ba-da-bum) • For lower doses, the RfD does not inform us of risk: • Safe is still safe. What does the RfD or critical effect say about toxicity at higher doses?

  4. Why Severity Categories? • Reference Dose Limitations • Bounding value: minimal to no risk for lower doses • Benchmark dose based on modeling the critical effect • Other effects not included in calculation of RfD • Doses higher than the RfD • Cannot estimate risk except of the critical effect • Need dose-response information on all “toxic effects” • Multiple responses and measures (need lots of data) • Such information is rarely in any single study Meta-analysis?

  5. Desirable Effects Information • Critical Effect—effect observed at the lowest dose • Do NOT want: P(critical effect | dose>RfD) • Secondary Effects—observed at higher doses, also includes: • Effects mediated by chemical metabolites • Effects that are not adverse (e.g., enzyme induction) • Variations in Effects (e.g., from chemical mixture exposures) • Co-occurring effects might be worse than any by itself • Usually require toxicologist’s judgment on severity • Mixture Issues • Joint toxic action may occur: dose- or response-additivity; toxicological interactions (e.g., synergism, antagonism)

  6. What Are We Modeling? RfD: An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the human population (includingsensitive subgroups) that islikely to bewithout an appreciable riskof deleterious effectsduring a lifetime. sensitive subgroups be conservative likely P( ... ) > 0.95 (?) deleterious effects “adverse effects” without an appreciable risk r < 0.01 (?) P( "risk of adverse effect" < 0.01 | dose<RfD) > 0.95

  7. What Are We Modeling? P( “adverse effect” | dose=D) for this presentation, D is a dose > RfD

  8. How Categorical Regression Works • Meta-analysis of exposure-response data • A method for combining health effects data across studies, endpoints, exposure durations and species • Basic approach to modeling (e.g., Dourson et al., 1997) • Using toxicological judgment, each dose group (or individual animal) of every study is assigned to a severity category • Using link function, e.g. logistic regression, severity categories are regressed on dose (and possibly duration) • Models predict the probability that an effect severity will be observed, given dose • Example also of five pesticides (Teuschler et al., 1999) • Toxicological effects data from multiple bioassays • Results compared with RfD

  9. Categorical Regression Model • Logistic model for the i th severity category • The Probability that severity is less than or equal to level i, given dose is expressed as: where s = severity i = an effect level (1=NOEL/NOAEL, 2=AEL, 3=FEL) αi = an intercept term for level i β = a slope factor related to dose

  10. Example 1. Frequency of Effect Categories for Aldicarb Exposure in Humans* *Source: Dourson et al. 1997. Categorical Regression of Toxicity Data, A Case Study Using Aldicarb. Reg. Toxicology and Pharmacology, 25:121-129 **Numbers reflect a judgment that whole blood (Haines, 1971) or red blood cell (Wyld et al., 1992) cholinesterase inhibition of 20% or greater is considered an adverse effect. This percentage can be debated and is a source of uncertainty.

  11. Example Severity Assignments for Human Health Effects from Aldicarb Exposures (Adapted from Dourson et al. ,1997)

  12. Aldicarb: Multiple Severities Information for the risk manager!

  13. Example 2. Health Effects of Concern for 5 Pesticides* *Source: Teuschler et al. 1999. Health Risk Above the Reference Dose for Multiple Chemicals. Reg. Tox. And Pharm. 30:S19-S26.

  14. Animal Study Data Records Modeled Using a 3 Category Model *NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effect Level, AEL = Adverse Effect Level, FEL = Frank Effect Level

  15. Pros and Cons • Advantages: • Provides a consistent basis for calculating risk above the RfD • Can use available data, even marginal studies and dose group level information • Accounts for severity of toxic effect by combining studies on multiple effects • Limitations: • Animal to human extrapolation is still needed • Data are transformed into categories, losing information • Cannot track toxic MOA progression with increasing dose • More tox judgment needed than merely NOAEL vs AEL

  16. Closer to Goal of P(toxicity | dose>RfD) RfD & BMD Categorical Regression clear, off-target more on target, but fuzzy

  17. DDT: oral, many species

  18. More Pros and Cons • Is this human RISK estimation? • If includes human incidence data, then YES • If human data are on dose groups, then Not Exactly • If animal data, then No • Not Exactly? No? • Dose group data: risk=P(dose group shows toxicity) • Animal data: unknown relevance to human probability (tolerance) distribution (same with BMD) • But, in either case: “risk” can inform regulatory decisions

  19. Categorical RegressionModeling Results P(Adverse or Frank Effect) is equal to 1 – P(s < 1), i.e., one minus the probability of observing a nonadverse or no effect. *Tests proportional odds assumption of common slope parameter across categories Source: Teuschler and Hertzberg, 2008, presented at SRA.

  20. Reference Doses (RfDs) and All Effects Toxicity Doses (AETDs) Meta-analysis used multiple durations and species so did not need those UFs *RfDs from IRIS (accessed 2008), except for Diazinon which was derived in Teuschler et al., 1999 **Uncertainty Factors (UF) = 10 for Interspecies, 10 for Intraspecies, and 10 for subchronic to chronic (Lindane), 10 for LOAEL to NOAEL (Disulfoton) ***AETD = ED05 from categorical regression, UF of 10 for intraspecies

  21. Future? • Multiple effect ED’s appear to provide a less conservative screen for risk than RfD-based ED’s • More data = better modeling • Duration influence • ‘omics data for precursors and adverse effects • Improved species conversions • Uncertainties need to be considered and discussed • Expert judgment used in identifying severity categories • Interpretation of using dose group data

  22. Acknowledgements • Linda Teuschler, US EPA • Mike Dourson and Lynne Haber, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment • Bill Stiteler, Syracuse Research Corporation

More Related