HFE C282Y and H63D in adults with malignancies in a community medical oncology practice

BACKGROUND: We sought to compare frequencies of HFE C282Y and H63D alleles and associated odds ratios (OR) in 100 consecutive unrelated white adults with malignancy to those in 318 controls. METHODS: Data from patients with more than one malignancy were analyzed according to each primary malignancy. For the present study, OR ≥2.0 or ≤0.5 was defined to be increased or decreased, respectively. RESULTS: There were 110 primary malignancies (52 hematologic neoplasms, 58 carcinomas) in the 100 adult patients. Allele frequencies were similar in patients and controls (C282Y: 0.0850 vs. 0.0896, respectively (OR = 0.9); H63D: 0.1400 vs. 0.1447, respectively (OR = 0.9)). Two patients had hemochromatosis and C282Y homozygosity. With C282Y, increased OR occurred in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloproliferative disorders, and adenocarcinoma of prostate (2.0, 2.8, and 3.4, respectively); OR was decreased in myelodysplasia (0.4). With H63D, increased OR occurred in myeloproliferative disorders and adenocarcinomas of breast and prostate (2.4, 2.0, and 2.0, respectively); OR was decreased in non-Hodgkin lymphoma and B-chronic lymphocytic leukemia (0.5 and 0.4, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In 100 consecutive adults with malignancy evaluated in a community medical oncology practice, frequencies of HFE C282Y or H63D were similar to those in the general population. This suggests that C282Y or H63D is not associated with an overall increase in cancer risk. However, odds ratios computed in the present study suggest that increased (or decreased) risk for developing specific types of malignancy may be associated with the inheritance of HFE C282Y or H63D. Study of more patients with these specific types of malignancies is needed to determine if trends described herein would remain and yield significant differences

Internationalizationof Read-Across as a Validated New Approach Method (NAM) for Regulatory Toxicology

Read-across (RAx) translates available information from well-characterized chemicals tothe substance for which there is a toxicological data gap. The OECD is working on case studies to probe general applicability of RAx, and several regulations (e.g. EU-REACH) already allow this procedure to be used to waive new in vivotests. The decision to prepare a review on the state of the art of RAx as a tool for risk assessment for regulatory purposes was taken during a workshop with international experts in Ranco, Italy in July 2018. Three major issues were identified that need optimisation to allowa higher regulatory acceptance rate of the RAx procedure: (i) the definition of similarity of source and target, (ii) the translation of biological/toxicological activity of source to target, in the RAx procedure, and (iii) how to deal with issues of ADMEthat may differ between source and target. The use of new approach methodologies (NAM) was discussed as one of the most important innovations to improve the acceptability of RAx. At present, NAM data may be used to confirm chemical and toxicological similarity. In the future, the use of NAM may be broadened to fully characterize the hazard and toxicokinetic properties of RAx compounds. Concerning available guidance, documents on Good Read-Across Practice (GRAP) and on best practices to perform and evaluatethe RAx process were identified. Here, in particular the RAx guidance, being worked out by the European Commission’s H2020 project EU-ToxRisk, together with many external partners with regulatory experience, is given

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008

SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). CONCLUSIONS: Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients

Improving confidence in (Q)SAR predictions under Canada’s Chemicals Management Plan – a chemical space approach^$

<p>One of the key challenges of Canada’s Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) is assessing chemicals with limited/no empirical hazard data for their risk to human health. In some instances, these chemicals have not been tested broadly for their toxicological potency; as such, limited information exists on their potential to induce human health effects following exposure. Although (quantitative) structure activity relationship ((Q)SAR) models are able to generate predictions to address data gaps for certain toxicological endpoints, the confidence in predictions also needs to be addressed. One way to address this issue is to apply a chemical space approach. This approach uses international toxicological databases, for example, those available in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) QSAR Toolbox. The approach,assesses a model’s ability to predict the potential hazards of chemicals that have limited hazard data that require assessment under the CMP when compared to a larger, data-rich chemical space that is structurally similar to chemicals of interest. This evaluation of a model’s predictive ability makes (Q)SAR analysis more transparent and increases confidence in the application of these predictions in a risk-assessment context. Using this approach, predictions for such chemicals obtained from four (Q)SAR models were successfully classified into high, medium and low confidence levels to better inform their use in decision-making.</p

Increasing Scientific Confidence in Adverse Outcome Pathways: Application of Tailored Bradford-Hill Considerations for Evaluating Weight of Evidence.

Systematic consideration of scientific support is a critical element in developing and, ultimately, using adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) for various regulatory applications. Though weight of evidence (WoE) analysis has been proposed as a basis for assessment of the maturity and level of confidence in an AOP, methodologies and tools are still being formalized. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Users' Handbook Supplement to the Guidance Document for Developing and Assessing AOPs (OECD 2014a; hereafter referred to as the OECD AOP Handbook) provides tailored Bradford-Hill (BH) considerations for systematic assessment of confidence in a given AOP. These considerations include (1) biological plausibility and (2) empirical support (dose-response, temporality, and incidence) for Key Event Relationships (KERs), and (3) essentiality of key events (KEs). Here, we test the application of these tailored BH considerations and the guidance outlined in the OECD AOP Handbook using a number of case examples to increase experience in more transparently documenting rationales for assigned levels of confidence to KEs and KERs, and to promote consistency in evaluation within and across AOPs. The major lessons learned from experience are documented, and taken together with the case examples, should contribute to better common understanding of the nature and form of documentation required to increase confidence in the application of AOPs for specific uses. Based on the tailored BH considerations and defining questions, a prototype quantitative model for assessing the WoE of an AOP using tools of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is described. The applicability of the approach is also demonstrated using the case example aromatase inhibition leading to reproductive dysfunction in fish. Following the acquisition of additional experience in the development and assessment of AOPs, further refinement of parameterization of the model through expert elicitation is recommended. Overall, the application of quantitative WoE approaches hold promise to enhance the rigor, transparency and reproducibility for AOP WoE determinations and may play an important role in delineating areas where research would have the greatest impact on improving the overall confidence in the AOP

Application of Toxicogenomic Analysis in Human Health Risk Assessment

Presented at a Health Canada Foru

Paving the way for application of next generation risk assessment to safety decision-making for cosmetic ingredients.

Next generation risk assessment (NGRA) is an exposure-led, hypothesis-driven approach that has the potential to support animal-free safety decision-making. However, significant effort is needed to develop and test the in vitro and in silico (computational) approaches that underpin NGRA to enable confident application in a regulatory context. A workshop was held in Montreal in 2019 to discuss where effort needs to be focussed and to agree on the steps needed to ensure safety decisions made on cosmetic ingredients are robust and protective. Workshop participants explored whether NGRA for cosmetic ingredients can be protective of human health, and reviewed examples of NGRA for cosmetic ingredients. From the limited examples available, it is clear that NGRA is still in its infancy, and further case studies are needed to determine whether safety decisions are sufficiently protective and not overly conservative. Seven areas were identified to help progress application of NGRA, including further investments in case studies that elaborate on scenarios frequently encountered by industry and regulators, including those where a ‘high risk’ conclusion would be expected. These will provide confidence that the tools and approaches can reliably discern differing levels of risk. Furthermore, frameworks to guide performance and reporting should be developed