t4 Workshop Report: Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS) for Safety Assessment

Integrated testing strategies (ITS), as opposed to single definitive tests or fixed batteries of tests, are expected to efficiently combine different information sources in a quantifiable fashion to satisfy an information need, in this case for regulatory safety assessments. With increasing awareness of the limitations of each individual tool and the development of highly targeted tests and predictions, the need for combining pieces of evidence increases. The discussions that took place during this workshop, which brought together a group of experts coming from different related areas, illustrate the current state of the art of ITS, as well as promising developments and identifiable challenges. The case of skin sensitization was taken as an example to understand how possible ITS can be constructed, optimized and validated. This will require embracing and developing new concepts such as adverse outcome pathways (AOP), advanced statistical learning algorithms and machine learning, mechanistic validation and “Good ITS Practices”.JRC.I.5-Systems Toxicolog

Two Good Read-across Practice workshops : Making it work for you!

publishe

La r sonance magn tique nucl aire est un nouvel outil performantau service de l'imagerie biom dicale

BSE B225015D / UCL - Université Catholique de LouvainSIGLEBEBelgiu

Photor duction de l'eau induite par les semiconducteurs et les photosensibilisateurs homog(nes

SIGLEBSE B225014K / UCL - Université Catholique de LouvainBEBelgiu

Synth(se directe et propri t s de benzyl tains substitu s

SIGLEBSE B221398C / UCL - Université Catholique de LouvainBEBelgiu

Applying non-animal strategies for assessing skin sensitisation report from an EPAA/cefic-LRI/IFRA Europe cross sector workshop, ECHA helsinki, February 7th and 8th 2019

Four years on since the last cross sector workshop, experience of the practical application and interpretation of several non-animal assays that contribute to the predictive identification of skin sensitisers has begun to accumulate. Non-animal methods used for hazard assessments increasingly are contributing to the potency sub-categorisation for regulatory purposes. However, workshop participants generally supported the view that there remained a pressing need to build confidence in how information from multiple methods can be combined for classification, sub-categorisation and potency assessment. Furthermore, the practical experience gained over the last few years, highlighted the overall high potential value of using the newly validated methods and testing strategies, but also that limitations for certain substance/product classes may become evident with further use as had been the case with other new regulatory methods. As the available information increases, review of the data and collated experience could further determine strengths and limitations leading to more confidence in their use. Finally, the need for a substantial and universally accepted dataset of non-sensitisers and substances of different sensitising potencies, based on combined human and in vivo animal data for validation of methods and test strategies was re-emphasised.JRC.F.3-Chemicals Safety and Alternative Method

In vitro RHE skin sensitisation assays: Applicability to challenging substances

In the last 20 years, alternative approaches to the identification of skin sensitisation hazards have been at the forefront of the 3Rs and have helped refine the validation and acceptance processes. However, experience with the local lymph node assay showed that, post-validation, challenges still occurred, particularly when a wider diversity of chemical substances was addressed, a situation which will arise with validated in vitro alternatives. In the present work, a range of substances potentially challenging to assess in current nonanimal OECD test guidelines were evaluated in several of the emerging in vitro alternatives. Twelve such substances (of which just over half were known skin sensitisers) were assessed in 4 assays, all based on reconstructed human epidermis (RHE) models. For hazard identification, the overall predictive accuracy ranged around 70% for three assays, although for one (SensCeeTox), it fell below 50% when human data was used as the benchmark. In most cases, sensitivity was high, such that sensitisation was overpredicted. As the substances were challenging to assess in other nonanimal methods, the results indicate that the 3D RHE models may be a useful tool for assessing skin sensitisation potentials without needing to revert to animal use.JRC.F.3-Chemicals Safety and Alternative Method