Two novel prediction models improve predictions of skin corrosive sub-categories by test methods of OECD Test Guideline No. 431

n/

EURL ECVAM Status Report on the Development, Validation and Regulatory Acceptance of Alternative Methods and Approaches (2013-April 2014)

The EURL ECVAM status report provides an update on the progress made in the development, validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods and approaches since the last report published in April 2013. It is informing on ongoing research and development activities, validation studies, peer reviews, recommendations, strategies and international acceptance of alternative methods and approaches. R&D activities are ongoing for the complex endpoints where the toxicological processes and the mechanistic understanding have not been sufficiently elucidated yet and for which 3Rs solutions are more difficult to find. On the other hand, good progress In the validation and regulatory acceptance is made in areas where non-animal alternative methods have been developed and validated and where the focus lies in an intelligent combination/ integration of the various non-animal approaches.JRC.I.5-Systems Toxicolog

Alternative methods for regulatory toxicology – a state-of-the-art review

This state-of-the art review is based on the final report of a project carried out by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) for the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). The aim of the project was to review the state of the science of non-standard methods that are available for assessing the toxicological and ecotoxicological properties of chemicals. Non-standard methods refer to alternatives to animal experiments, such as in vitro tests and computational models, as well as animal methods that are not covered by current regulatory guidelines. This report therefore reviews the current scientific status of non-standard methods for a range of human health and ecotoxicological endpoints, and provides a commentary on the mechanistic basis and regulatory applicability of these methods. For completeness, and to provide context, currently accepted (standard) methods are also summarised. In particular, the following human health endpoints are covered: a) skin irritation and corrosion; b) serious eye damage and eye irritation; c) skin sensitisation; d) acute systemic toxicity; e) repeat dose toxicity; f) genotoxicity and mutagenicity; g) carcinogenicity; h) reproductive toxicity (including effects on development and fertility); i) endocrine disruption relevant to human health; and j) toxicokinetics. In relation to ecotoxicological endpoints, the report focuses on non-standard methods for acute and chronic fish toxicity. While specific reference is made to the information needs of REACH, the Biocidal Products Regulation and the Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation, this review is also expected to be informative in relation to the possible use of alternative and non-standard methods in other sectors, such as cosmetics and plant protection products.JRC.I.5-Systems Toxicolog

EURL ECVAM Status Report on the Development, Validation and Regulatory Acceptance of Alternative Methods and Approaches (2015)

The EURL ECVAM status report provides an update on the progress made in the development, validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods and approaches and their dissemination since the last report published in June 2014. It is informing on ongoing research and development activities, validation studies, peer reviews, recommendations, strategies and regulatory/international acceptance of alternative methods and approaches and dissemination activities. R&D activities within large European or International consortia continued in toxicity areas where 3Rs solutions are more difficult to find due to the underlying complexity of the area. On the other hand, toxicity areas where promising non-animal approaches have been developed, their validation and regulatory acceptance/international adoption could be progressed. Particular emphasis was given to the best and most intelligent combination and integration of these different non-animal approaches to ultimately obtain the required information without resorting to animal testing.JRC.I.5-Systems Toxicolog

La ségétaline A (synthèse chimique et perspective thérapeutique potentielle comme anti-angiogénique)

AMIENS-BU Santé (800212102) / SudocSudocFranceF

Two Novel Prediction Models Improve Predictions of Skin Corrosive Sub-categories by Test Methods of OECD Test Guideline No. 431

Alternative test methods often use prediction models (PMs) for converting endpoint measurements into predictions. Two PMs are used in the OECD Test Guideline No. 431 (TG431) on skin corrosion. One is specific to EpiSkin™ test method, whereas EpiDerm™, SkinEthic™RHE and epiCS® share a common PM. These four methods are Reconstructed human Epidermis models wherein several cell viability values are measured. Their PMs allow translating those values into sub-categories of corrosive chemicals, Category 1A (Cat1A) and a combination of Categories 1B/1C (Cat1BC), and identifying non-corrosive chemicals. EpiSkin™'s PM already results in sufficiently accurate predictions. The common PM of the three others accurately identifies all corrosive chemicals but, regarding their sub-categorization, an important fraction of Cat1BC chemicals (40-50%) is over-predicted as Cat1A. This paper presents a post-hoc analysis of validation data on a consistent set of n=80 chemicals. It investigates (i) why this common PM causes these over-predictions and (ii) how two novel PMs that we developed (PMvar1 and PMvar2) improve the predictive capacity of these methods. PMvar1 is based on a two-step approach; PMvar2 is based on a single composite indicator of cell viability. Both showed a marked greater capacity to predict Cat1BC, and Cat1A correct predictions remain at least at the same level of EpiSkin™. We suggest revising TG431, and its performance standards, to include the novel PMs in view of improving the predictive capacity of its in vitro skin corrosion methods.JRC.I.5-Systems Toxicolog

Recruitability and effect of PEEP in SARS-Cov-2-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome

International audienceBACKGROUND:A large proportion of patients with a SARS-Cov-2-associated respiratory failure develop an acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It has been recently suggested that SARS-Cov-2-associated ARDS may differ from usual non-SARS-Cov-2-associated ARDS by higher respiratory system compliance (CRS), lower potential for recruitment with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) contrasting with severe shunt fraction. The purpose of the study was to systematically assess respiratory mechanics and recruitability in SARS-Cov-2-associated ARDS.METHODS:Gas exchanges, CRS and hemodynamics were assessed at 2 levels of PEEP (15 cmH2O and 5 cmH2O) within 36 h (day1) and from 4 to 6 days (day 5) after intubation. The recruited volume was computed as the difference between the volume expired from PEEP 15 to 5 cmH2O and the volume predicted by compliance at PEEP 5 cmH2O (or above airway opening pressure). The recruitment-to-inflation (R/I) ratio (i.e. the ratio between the recruited lung compliance and CRS at PEEP 5 cmH2O) was used to assess lung recruitability. A R/I ratio value higher than or equal to 0.5 was used to define highly recruitable patients.RESULTS:The R/I ratio was calculated in 25 of the 26 enrolled patients at day 1 and in 15 patients at day 5. At day 1, 16 (64%) were considered as highly recruitable (R/I ratio median [interquartile range] 0.7 [0.55-0.94]) and 9 (36%) were considered as poorly recruitable (R/I ratio 0.41 [0.31-0.48]). The PaO2/FiO2 ratio at PEEP 15 cmH2O was higher compared to PEEP 5 cmH2O only in highly recruitable patients (173 [139-236] vs 135 [89-167] mmHg; p < 0.01). Neither PaO2/FiO2 or CRS measured at PEEP 15 cmH2O or at PEEP 5 cmH2O nor changes in PaO2/FiO2 or CRS in response to PEEP changes allowed to identify highly or poorly recruitable patients.CONCLUSION:In this series of 25 patients with SARS-Cov-2 associated ARDS, 64% were considered as highly recruitable and only 36% as poorly recruitable based on the R/I ratio performed on the day of intubation. This observation suggests that a systematic R/I ratio assessment may help to guide initial PEEP titration to limit harmful effect of unnecessary high PEEP in the context of Covid-19 crisis

Longitudinal changes in compliance, oxygenation and ventilatory ratio in COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 pulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome

International audienceAbstract Background Differences in physiology of ARDS have been described between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to compare initial values and longitudinal changes in respiratory system compliance ( C RS ), oxygenation parameters and ventilatory ratio (VR) in patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pulmonary ARDS matched on oxygenation. Methods 135 patients with COVID-19 ARDS from two centers were included in a physiological study; 767 non-COVID-19 ARDS from a clinical trial were used for the purpose of at least 1:2 matching. A propensity-matching was based on age, severity score, oxygenation, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and pulmonary cause of ARDS and allowed to include 112 COVID-19 and 198 non-COVID pulmonary ARDS. Results The two groups were similar on initial oxygenation. COVID-19 patients had a higher body mass index, higher C RS at day 1 (median [IQR], 35 [28–44] vs 32 [26–38] ml cmH 2 O −1 , p = 0.037). At day 1, C RS was correlated with oxygenation only in non-COVID-19 patients; 61.6% and 68.2% of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pulmonary ARDS were still ventilated at day 7 ( p = 0.241). Oxygenation became lower in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients at days 3 and 7, while C RS became similar. VR was lower at day 1 in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients but increased from day 1 to 7 only in COVID-19 patients. VR was higher at days 1, 3 and 7 in the COVID-19 patients ventilated using heat and moisture exchangers compared to heated humidifiers. After adjustment on PaO 2 /FiO 2 , PEEP and humidification device, C RS and VR were found not different between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at day 7. Day-28 mortality did not differ between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients (25.9% and 23.7%, respectively, p = 0.666). Conclusions For a similar initial oxygenation, COVID-19 ARDS initially differs from classical ARDS by a higher C RS , dissociated from oxygenation. C RS become similar for patients remaining on mechanical ventilation during the first week of evolution, but oxygenation becomes lower in COVID-19 patients. Trial registration : clinicaltrials.gov NCT0438500