Research needs for the risk assessment of health and environmental effects of endocrine disruptors: A report of the US EPA-sponsored workshop

The hypothesis has been put forward that humans and wildlife species have suffered adverse health effects after exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Reported adverse effects include declines in populations, increases in cancers, and reduced reproductive function. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sponsored a workshop in April 1995 to bring together interested parties in an effort to identify research gaps related to this hypothesis and to establish priorities for future research activities. Approximately 90 invited participants were organized into work groups developed around the principal reported health effects-carcinogenesis, reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, and immunotoxicity--as well as along the risk assessment paradigm--hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment, and risk characterization. Attention focused on both ecological and human health effects. In general, the group felt that the hypothesis warranted a concerted research effort to evaluate its validity and that research should focus primarily on effects on development of reproductive capability, on improved exposure assessment, and on the effects of mixtures. This report summarizes the discussions of the work groups and details the recommendations for additional research

The EDKB: an established knowledge base for endocrine disrupting chemicals

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Endocrine disruptors (EDs) and their broad range of potential adverse effects in humans and other animals have been a concern for nearly two decades. Many putative EDs are widely used in commercial products regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) such as food packaging materials, ingredients of cosmetics, medical and dental devices, and drugs. The Endocrine Disruptor Knowledge Base (EDKB) project was initiated in the mid 1990’s by the FDA as a resource for the study of EDs. The EDKB database, a component of the project, contains data across multiple assay types for chemicals across a broad structural diversity. This paper demonstrates the utility of EDKB database, an integral part of the EDKB project, for understanding and prioritizing EDs for testing.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The EDKB database currently contains 3,257 records of over 1,800 EDs from different assays including estrogen receptor binding, androgen receptor binding, uterotropic activity, cell proliferation, and reporter gene assays. Information for each compound such as chemical structure, assay type, potency, etc. is organized to enable efficient searching. A user-friendly interface provides rapid navigation, Boolean searches on EDs, and both spreadsheet and graphical displays for viewing results. The search engine implemented in the EDKB database enables searching by one or more of the following fields: chemical structure (including exact search and similarity search), name, molecular formula, CAS registration number, experiment source, molecular weight, etc. The data can be cross-linked to other publicly available and related databases including TOXNET, Cactus, ChemIDplus, ChemACX, Chem Finder, and NCI DTP. </p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The EDKB database enables scientists and regulatory reviewers to quickly access ED data from multiple assays for specific or similar compounds. The data have been used to categorize chemicals according to potential risks for endocrine activity, thus providing a basis for prioritizing chemicals for more definitive but expensive testing. The EDKB database is publicly available and can be found online at <url>http://edkb.fda.gov/webstart/edkb/index.html</url>.</p> <p><b>Disclaimer:</b><it>The views presented in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the US Food and Drug Administration.</it></p

A path forward in the debate over health impacts of endocrine disrupting chemicals

Several recent publications reflect debate on the issue of “endocrine disrupting chemicals” (EDCs), indicating that two seemingly mutually exclusive perspectives are being articulated separately and independently. Considering this, a group of scientists with expertise in basic science, medicine and risk assessment reviewed the various aspects of the debate to identify the most significant areas of dispute and to propose a path forward. We identified four areas of debate. The first is about the definitions for terms such as “endocrine disrupting chemical”, “adverse effects”, and “endocrine system”. The second is focused on elements of hormone action including “potency”, “endpoints”, “timing”, “dose” and “thresholds”. The third addresses the information needed to establish sufficient evidence of harm. Finally, the fourth focuses on the need to develop and the characteristics of transparent, systematic methods to review the EDC literature. Herein we identify areas of general consensus and propose resolutions for these four areas that would allow the field to move beyond the current and, in our opinion, ineffective debate

A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals

Background - The issue of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is receiving wide attention from both the scientific and regulatory communities. Recent analyses of the EDC literature have been criticized for failing to use transparent and objective approaches to draw conclusions about the strength of evidence linking EDC exposures to adverse health or environmental outcomes. Systematic review methodologies are ideal for addressing this issue as they provide transparent and consistent approaches to study selection and evaluation. Objective methods are needed for integrating the multiple streams of evidence (epidemiology, wildlife, laboratory animal, in vitro, and in silico data) that are relevant in assessing EDCs. Methods - We have developed a framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of EDC studies. The framework was designed for use with the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS) and World Health Organization (WHO) definition of an EDC, which requires appraisal of evidence regarding 1) association between exposure and an adverse effect, 2) association between exposure and endocrine disrupting activity, and 3) a plausible link between the adverse effect and the endocrine disrupting activity. Results - Building from existing methodologies for evaluating and synthesizing evidence, the SYRINA framework includes seven steps: 1) Formulate the problem; 2) Develop the review protocol; 3) Identify relevant evidence; 4) Evaluate evidence from individual studies; 5) Summarize and evaluate each stream of evidence; 6) Integrate evidence across all streams; 7) Draw conclusions, make recommendations, and evaluate uncertainties. The proposed method is tailored to the IPCS/WHO definition of an EDC but offers flexibility for use in the context of other definitions of EDCs. Conclusions - When using the SYRINA framework, the overall objective is to provide the evidence base needed to support decision making, including any action to avoid/minimise potential adverse effects of exposures. This framework allows for the evaluation and synthesis of evidence from multiple evidence streams. Finally, a decision regarding regulatory action is not only dependent on the strength of evidence, but also the consequences of action/inaction, e.g. limited or weak evidence may be sufficient to justify action if consequences are serious or irreversible.The workshops that supported the writing of this manuscript were funded by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research “Mistra”. LNV was funded by Award Number K22ES025811 from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. TJW was funded by The Clarence Heller Foundation (A123547), the Passport Foundation, the Forsythia Foundation, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (grants ES018135 and ESO22841), and U.S. EPA STAR grants (RD83467801 and RD83543301). JT was funded by the Academy of Finland and Sigrid Juselius. UH was funded by the Danish EPA. KAK was funded by the Canada Research Chairs program grant number 950–230607