A new sighting study for the fixed concentration procedure to allow for gender differences

The fixed concentration procedure (FCP) has been proposed as an alternative to the median lethal concentration (LC50) test (organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD) test guideline [TG] 403) for the assessment of acute inhalation toxicity. The FCP tests animals of a single gender (usually females) at a number of fixed concentration levels in a sequential fashion. It begins with a sighting study that precedes the main FCP study and is used to determine the main study starting concentration. In this paper, we propose a modification to the sighting study and suggest that it should be conducted using both male and female animals, rather than just animals of a single gender. Statistical analysis demonstrates that, when females are more sensitive, the new procedure is likely to give the same classification as the original FCP, whereas, if males are more sensitive, the new procedure is much less likely to lead to incorrect classification into a less toxic category. If there is no difference in the LC50 for females and males, the new procedure is slightly more likely to classify into a more stringent class than the original FCP. Overall, these results show that the revised sighting study ensures gender differences in sensitivity do not significantly impact on the performance of the FCP, supporting its use as an alternative test method for assessing acute inhalation toxicity

A statistical evaluation of the effects of gender differences in assessment of acute inhalation toxicity

Acute inhalation toxicity of chemicals has conventionally been assessed by the median lethal concentration (LC50) test (organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD) TG 403). Two new methods, the recently adopted acute toxic class method (ATC; OECD TG 436) and a proposed fixed concentration procedure (FCP), have recently been considered, but statistical evaluations of these methods did not investigate the influence of differential sensitivity between male and female rats on the outcomes. This paper presents an analysis of data from the assessment of acute inhalation toxicity for 56 substances. Statistically significant differences between the LC50 for males and females were found for 16 substances, with greater than 10-fold differences in the LC50 for two substances. The paper also reports a statistical evaluation of the three test methods in the presence of unanticipated gender differences. With TG 403, a gender difference leads to a slightly greater chance of under-classification. This is also the case for the ATC method, but more pronounced than for TG 403, with misclassification of nearly all substances from Globally Harmonised System (GHS) class 3 into class 4. As the FCP uses females only, if females are more sensitive, the classification is unchanged. If males are more sensitive, the procedure may lead to under-classification. Additional research on modification of the FCP is thus proposed

Novel in vitro and mathematical models for the prediction of chemical toxicity

The focus of much scientific and medical research is directed towards understanding the disease process and defining therapeutic intervention strategies. Whilst the scientific basis of drug safety has received relatively little attention, despite the fact that adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are a major health concern and a serious impediment to development of new medicines. Toxicity issues account for ~21% drug attrition during drug development and safety testing strategies require considerable animal use. Mechanistic relationships between drug plasma levels and molecular/cellular events that culminate in whole organ toxicity underpins development of novel safety assessment strategies. Current in vitro test systems are poorly predictive of toxicity of chemicals entering the systemic circulation, particularly to the liver. Such systems fall short because of 1) the physiological gap between cells currently used & human hepatocytes existing in their native state, 2) the lack of physiological integration with other cells/systems within organs, required to amplify the initial toxicological lesion into overt toxicity, 3) the inability to assess how low level cell damage induced by chemicals may develop into overt organ toxicity in a minority of patients, 4) lack of consideration of systemic effects. Reproduction of centrilobular & periportal hepatocyte phenotypes in in vitro culture is crucial for sensitive detection of cellular stress. Hepatocyte metabolism/phenotype is dependent on cell position along the liver lobule, with corresponding differences in exposure to substrate, oxygen & hormone gradients. Application of bioartificial liver (BAL) technology can encompass in vitro predictive toxicity testing with enhanced sensitivity and improved mechanistic understanding. Combining this technology with mechanistic mathematical models describing intracellular metabolism, fluid-­‐flow, substrate, hormone and nutrient distribution provides the opportunity to design the BAL specifically to mimic the in vivo scenario. Such mathematical models enable theoretical hypothesis testing, will inform the design of in vitro experiments, and will enable both refinement and reduction of in vivo animal trials. In this way, development of novel mathematical modelling tools will help to focus and direct in vitro and in vivo research, and can be used as a framework for other areas of drug safety science

Cross-Sector Review of Drivers and Available 3Rs Approaches for Acute Systemic Toxicity Testing

Acute systemic toxicity studies are carried out in many sectors in which synthetic chemicals are manufactured or used and are among the most criticized of all toxicology tests on both scientific and ethical grounds. A review of the drivers for acute toxicity testing within the pharmaceutical industry led to a paradigm shift whereby in vivo acute toxicity data are no longer routinely required in advance of human clinical trials. Based on this experience, the following review was undertaken to identify (1) regulatory and scientific drivers for acute toxicity testing in other industrial sectors, (2) activities aimed at replacing, reducing, or refining the use of animals, and (3) recommendations for future work in this area

Can Acute Dermal Systemic Toxicity Tests Be Replaced With Oral Tests? A Comparison of Route-Specific Systemic Toxicity and Hazard Classifications Under the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS)

Acute systemic toxicity data (LD50 values) and hazard classifications derived in the rat following oral administration and dermal application have been analysed to examine whether or not orally-derived hazard classification or LD50 values can be used to determine dermal hazard classification. Comparing the oral and dermal classifications for 335 substances derived from oral and dermal LD50 values respectively revealed 17% concordance, and indicated that 7% of substances would be classified less severely while 76% would be classified more severely if oral classifications were applied directly to the dermal route. In contrast, applying the oral LD50 values within the dermal classification criteria to determine the dermal classification reduced the concordance to 15% and the relative ‘under-classification’ to 1%, but increased the relative ‘over-classification’ to 84%. Both under- and over-classification are undesirable, and mitigation strategies are discussed. Finally, no substance with an oral LD50 of \u3e2000 mg/kg was classified for acute systemic toxicity by the dermal route, suggesting that dermal testing for acute systemic toxicity of such substances adds nothing to the hazard characterisation and should be removed from routine regulatory data requirements

Can Acute Dermal Systemic Toxicity Tests Be Replaced With Oral Tests? A Comparison of Route-Specific Systemic Toxicity and Hazard Classifications Under the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS)

Acute systemic toxicity data (LD50 values) and hazard classifications derived in the rat following oral administration and dermal application have been analysed to examine whether or not orally-derived hazard classification or LD50 values can be used to determine dermal hazard classification. Comparing the oral and dermal classifications for 335 substances derived from oral and dermal LD50 values respectively revealed 17% concordance, and indicated that 7% of substances would be classified less severely while 76% would be classified more severely if oral classifications were applied directly to the dermal route. In contrast, applying the oral LD50 values within the dermal classification criteria to determine the dermal classification reduced the concordance to 15% and the relative ‘under-classification’ to 1%, but increased the relative ‘over-classification’ to 84%. Both under- and over-classification are undesirable, and mitigation strategies are discussed. Finally, no substance with an oral LD50 of \u3e2000 mg/kg was classified for acute systemic toxicity by the dermal route, suggesting that dermal testing for acute systemic toxicity of such substances adds nothing to the hazard characterisation and should be removed from routine regulatory data requirements