Advertisement

The Use of Integrated and Intelligent Testing Strategies in the Prediction of Toxic Hazard and in Risk Assessment

  • Michael Balls
  • Robert D. Combes
  • Nirmala Bhogal
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 745)

Abstract

There is increasing concern that insurmountable differences between humans and laboratory animals limit the relevance and reliability for hazard identification and risk assessment purposes of animal data produced by traditional toxicity test procedures. A way forward is offered by the emerging new technologies, which can be directly applied to human material or even to human beings themselves. This promises to revolutionise the evaluation of the safety of chemicals and chemical products of various kinds and, in particular, pharmaceuticals. The available and developing technologies are summarised and it is emphasised that they will need to be used selectively, in integrated and intelligent testing strategies, which, in addition to being scientifically sound, must be manageable and affordable. Examples are given of proposed testing strategies for general chemicals, cosmetic ingredients, candidate pharmaceuticals, inhaled substances, nanoparticles and neurotoxicity.

Keywords

Testing Strategy PBPK Model Omics Approach Cosmetic Ingredient Innovative Medicine Initiative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    ECHA. European Chemicals Agency. About the Agency. Helsinki: European Chemicals Agency, 2011: Available at: http://echa.europa.eu/home_en.asp.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    HSE. Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). London: Health and Safety Executive, 2011.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    EPA. Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 2011: Available at: http://www.epa.gov/regulations/laws/tsca.html.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Takemoto K. Practical approach in chemicals legislation — Japan’s experience. Tokyo: Ministry of the Environment, 2010: Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_pdfs/csd-18/12may/ launching-publication-chemicals/presentation_Japan.pdf.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    OECD. Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4: Health Effects. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2011. Available at: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/ oecd-guidelines-for-the-testing-of-chemicals-section-4-health-effects_20745788.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Combes RD, Gaunt I, Balls M. A scientific and animal welfare assessment of the OECD health effects test guidelines for the safety testing of chemicals under the European Union REACH system. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2004; 32(3):163–208.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    UN. Globally harmonized systems of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS). 3rd ed. Geneva: United Nations, 2009.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    GAO. Comparison of U.S. and recently enacted European Union approaches to protect against the risks of toxic chemicals. GAO-07-825. Washington, DC: US Government Accountability Office, 2007.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ECHA. Proposals to identify Substances of Very High Concern: Annex XV reports for commenting by Interested Parties. Helsinki: European Chemical Agency, 2011: Available at: http://echa.europa.eu/ consultations/authorisation/svhc/svhc_cons_en.asp.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knight A, Bailey J, Balcombe J. Animal carcinogenicity studies: 2. Obstacles to extrapolation of data to humans. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2006; 34(1):29–38.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bremer S, Pellizzer C, Hoffmann S et al. The development of new concepts for assessing reproductive toxicity applicable to large scale toxicological programmes. Curr Pharm Des 2007; 13(29):3047–3058.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hartung T. Toxicology for the twenty-first century. Nature 2009; 460(7252):208–212.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bhogal N, Grindon C, Combes R et al. Toxicity testing—creating a revolution based on new technologies. Trends Biotechnol 2005; 23(6):299–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Research Council. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2007.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    MHRA. How we regulate. London: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, 2011: Available at: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Howweregulate/index.htm.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    EMA. What we do. London: European Medicines Agency, 2011: Available at: http://www.ema. europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/about_us/general/general_content_000091.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580028a42&jsenabled=true.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    FDA. Protecting and promoting your health. Silver Spring: US Food and Drug Administration, 2011: Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/default.htm.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    JPMA. Pharmaceutical administration and regulations in Japan. Tokyo: Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, 2010.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ICH. Process of harmonisation. Geneva: International Conference on Harmonisation 2011. Available at: http://www.ich.org/about/process-of-harmonisation.html.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ICH Secretariat. The value and benefits of ICH to drug regulatory authorities—advancing harmonization for better health. Geneva: International Conference on Harmonisation, 2010.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pollard CE, Abi-Gerges N, Bridgland-Taylor MH et al. An introduction to QT interval prolongation and nonclinical approaches to assessing and reducing risk. Br J Pharmacol 2010; 159(1):12–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Issa AM, Phillips KA, Van Bebber S et al. Drug withdrawals in the United States: a systematic review of the evidence and analysis of trends. Curr Drug Safety 2007; 2 (3):177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    FDA. Challenge and opportunity on the critical path toward new medical products. Silver Spring: US Food and Drug Administration, 2004.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    IMI. Home page. Brussels: Innovative Medicines Initiative, 2011: Available at: http://www.imi.europa.eu/.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Balls M, Clothier R. A FRAME Response to the European Commission Consultation on the Draft Report on Alternative (Nonanimal) Methods for Cosmetics Testing: Current Status and Future Prospects—2010. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2010; 38(5):345–353.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    van der Zee B. Cosmetics industry criticised as EU set to admit delay in animal testing ban. London: Guardian, 2010.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Adler S, Basketter D, Creton S et al. Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects—2010. Arch Toxicol 2011; 85:367–485.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hudson M, Balls M. Ethics and regulation in the use of laboratory animals. In: Ballo, A, ed. Implant Dentistry Research Guide: Basic, Translational and Experimental Clinical Research. Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers, in press.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bhogal N, Combes R. TGN1412: time to change the paradigm for the testing of new pharmaceuticals. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2006; 34(2):225–239.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Department of Health. Interim report of the Expert Scientific Group on Phase 1 Clinical Trials. London: Department of Health, 2006.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bhogal N, Seabra R. Why animal studies cannot suitably assess nanomedicines. Pharm Technol 2010; 22(1):38–41.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schrand AM, Dai L, Schlager JJ et al. Toxicity testing of nanomaterials. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/Springer Science + Business Media, 2011: 59–76.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bhogal N, Combes R, Balls M. Preclinical drug development planning. In: Gad S, ed. Preclinical Development Handbook. Hoboken: Wiley 2007;1–63.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bhogal N, Balls M. Translation of new technologies: from basic research to drug discovery and development. Curr Drug Discov Technol 2008; 5(3):250–262.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Balls M, Bennett, A, Kendall D. Translation of new technologies in biomedicines: shaping the road from basic research to drug development and clinical application. In: Kayser O, Warzeka H, eds. Pharmaceutical biotechnology—a comprehensive handbook. Weinheim: Wiley-VCG, in press.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ekins S, Mestre J, Testa B. In silico pharmacology for drug discovery: methods for virtual ligand screening and profiling. Br J Pharmacol 2007; 152(1):9–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ekins S, Mestre J, Testa B. In silico pharmacology for drug discovery: applications to targets and beyond. Br J Pharmacol 2007; 152(1):21–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Combes RD. In silico methods for toxicity prediction. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/Springer Science + Business Media, 2011: 97–118.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cronin MTD, Madden JC, eds. In Silico Toxicology: Principles and Applications. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2010.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Marx U. Trends in cell culture technology. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/Springer Science + Business Media, 2011: 27–47.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sbrana T, Ahluwalia A. Engineering Quasi-Vivo® in vitro organ models. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/Springer Sceince + Business Media, 2011:139–154.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wen Y, Zhang X, Yang ST. Medium to high throughput screening: microfabrication and chip-based toxicology. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/Springer Science + Business Media, 2011: 183–212.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shakesheff KM, Rose FRAJ. Tissue engineering in the development of replacement technologies. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/Springer Science + Business Media, 2011:48–54.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Agresti JJ, Antipov E, Abate AR et al. Ultrahigh-throughput screening in drop-based microfluidics for directed evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010; 107(9):4004–4009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Stacey G. Current developments in cell culture technology. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/Springer Science + Business Media, 2011:1–14.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stummann TC, Bremer S. Embryonic stem cells in safety pharmacology and toxicology. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/ Springer Science + Business Media, 2011: 15–26.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Takahashi T, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M et al. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 2007; 131(5):861–872.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yu J, Hu K, Smuga-Otto K et al. Human induced pluripotent stem cells free of vector and transgene sequences. Science 2009; 324(5928):797–801.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Anson B, Nuwaysir E, Wang WB et al. Industrialised production of human iPSCV-derived cardiomyocytes for use in drug discovery and toxicity testing. Biopharm Internat 2009; 24(3):58–67.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sullivan GJ, Hay DC, Park IH et al. Generation of functional human hepatic endoderm from human induced pluripotent stem cells. Hepatology 2010; 51(1):329–335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Solanki A, Lee KB. A step closer to complete chemical reprogramming for generating iPS cells. Chembiochem 2010; 11(6):755–757.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Thomas N. High-content screening—a decade of evolution. J Biomol Screen 2010; 15(1), 1–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Taylor DL. A personal perspective on high-content screening (HCS): from the beginning. J Biomol Screen 2010; 15(7):720–725.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Casciano DA. The use of genomics in model in vitro systems. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/Springer Science + Business Media, 2011:213–256.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lipscomb JC, Haddad S, Poet T et al. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPL) models in toxicity testing and risk assessment. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin/New York: Landes Bioscience/Springer Science + Business Media, 2011:77–96.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Thomas S. Physiologically-based simulation modelling for the reduction of animal use in the discovery of novel pharmaceuticals. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2009; 37(5):497–511.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Noble D. Modeling the heart—from genes to cells to the whole organ. Science 2002; 295(5560): 1678–1682.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Holden AV. Development and application of human virtual excitable tissues and organs from premature birth to sudden cardiac death. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2010; 38(suppl. 1):87–99.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kleiman M, Sagi Y, Bloch N et al. (2009) Use of virtual patient populations for rescuing discontinued drug candidates and for reducing the number of patients in clinical trials. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2009; 37(suppl. 1):39–45.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Vasan RS. Biomarkers of cardiovascular disease—molecular basis and practical considerations. Circulation 2006; 113(19):2335–2362.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Corrias A, Jie X, Romero L et al. Arrhythmic risk biomarkers for the assessment of drug cardiotoxicity: from experiments to computer simulations. Phil Trans Roy Soc A 2010; 368(1921):3001–3025.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Dieterle F, Sistare F, Goodsaid F et al. Renal biomarker qualification submission: a dialog between the FDA-EMEA and Predictive Safety Testing Consortium. Nat Biotechnol 2010; 28(5):455–462.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    A non. New developments in clinical imaging. NGP Magazine, 2008:13. Available at: http://www.ngpharma. com/article/New-Developments-in-Clinical-Imaging.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Benoit G. Bioinformatics. In: Cronin B, ed. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. Medford: Information Today for ASIST 2005; 39:179–218.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Butcher EC, Berg EL, Kunkel EJ. Systems biology in drug discovery. Nat Biotechnol 2004; 22(10):1253–1259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hoffmann S, Hartung T. Toward an evidence-based toxicology. Hum Exp Toxicol 2006; 25(9):497–513.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Balls M. Integrated testing strategies and the prediction of toxic hazard. In: Cronin MTD, Madden JC, eds. In Silico Toxicology: Principles and Applications. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2010; 584–605.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Combes RD, Balls M. Integrated testing strategies for toxicity employing new and existing technologies. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2011; 39(3):213–225.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al. Integrated testing strategies for use in the EU REACH system. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2006; 34(4):407–427.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Combes R, Grindon C, Cronin MTD et al. Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for acute systemic toxicity and toxicokinetics with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2008; 36(1):45–63.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Combes R, Grindon C, Cronin MTD et al. Proposed integrated decision-tree testing strategies for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity in relation to the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2007; 35(2):267–287.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al. Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for developmental and reproductive toxicity with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2008; 36(1):65–80.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al. An integrated decision-tree testing strategy for eye irritation with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2008; 36(1):81–92.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al. An integrated decision-tree testing strategy for repeat dose toxicity with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2008; 36(1):93–101.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al. Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for skin corrosion and irritation with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2007; 35(6):673–682.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al. An integrated decision-tree testing strategy for skin sensitisation with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2007; 35(6):683–697.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Grindon C, Combes R, Cronin MTD et al. Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for environmental toxicity with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2008; 36(suppl. 1):29–42.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Bal-Price AK, Hogberg HT, Buzanska L et al. Relevance of in vitro neurotoxicity testing for regulatory requirements: challenges to be considered. Neurotoxicol Teratol 2010; 32(1):36–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Coecke S, Eskes C, Gartlon J et al. The value of alternative testing for neurotoxicity in the context of regulatory needs. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 2006; 21(2):153–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Combes RD, Berridge T, Connelly J et al. Early microdose drug studies in human volunteers can minimise animal testing: Proceedings of a workshop organised by Volunteers in Research and Testing. Eur J Pharm Sci 2003; 19(1):1–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Dave SR, White CC, Kavanagh TJ et al. Luminescent quantum dots for molecular toxicology. In: Balls M, Combes R, Bhogal N, eds. New Technologies in Toxicity Testing. Austin, TX, USA: Landes Bioscience 2011: 118–138.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    BéruBé K, Aufderheide M, Breheny D et al. In vitro models of inhalation toxicity and disease. The Report of a FRAME Workshop. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2009; 37(1):89–141.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Combes R, Balls M. Intelligent testing strategies for chemicals testing—A case of more haste, less speed? Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2005; 33(3):289–297.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Kinsner-Ovaskainen A, Akkan Z, Casati S et al. Overcoming barriers to validation of non-animal partial replacement methods/integrated testing strategies: The Report of an EPAA-ECVAM Workshop. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2009; 37(4):437–444.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Knight DJ, Poncipe C. Use of literature and surrogate safety data for notifications, HPV chemicals and biocides. Spec Chem Mag 2002; 22(10):28–29.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Bérubé K. Alternatives for lung research: stuck between a rat and a hard place. Altern Lab Anim— ATLA 2011; 39(2):121–130.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Russmann S, Kullak-Ublick GA, Grattagliano I. Current concepts of mechanisms in drug-induced hepatotoxicity. Curr Med Chem 2009; 16:3041–3053.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Aithal GP. Mind the gap. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2010; 38(suppl. 1):1–4.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Doehmer J. The use and value of in vitro technologies in metabolism studies. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2009; 37(suppl. 1):29–32.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Lee WM, Senior JR. Recognising drug induced liver injury: current problems, possible solutions. Toxicol Pathol 2005; 33:155–164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Marchant CA, Fisk L, Note RR et al. An expert system approach to the assessment of hepatotoxic potential. Chem Biodivers 2009; 6:2107–2114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Mandenius CF, Andersson TB, Alves PM et al. Toward preclinical predictive drug testing for metabolism and hepatotoxicity by using in vitro models derived from human embryonic stem cells and human cell lines—a report on the Vitrocellomics EU-project. Altern Lab Anim—ATLA 2011; 39:147–171.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Anon. The DILI-sim initiative. Research Triangle Park: Hamner-UNC Institute for Drug Safety Sciences, 2011: Available at: http://www.thehamner.org/content/DILI-sim_WebEx_4_7_2011.pdf.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Anon. Drug-induced liver injury. Liverpool: MRC Centre for Drug Safety Studies, 2011: Available at: http://www.liv.ac.uk/drug-safety/research/researchareas/liver-injury.htm.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Daly AK, Donaldson PT, Bhatnagar P et al. HLA-B*5701 genotype is a majordeterminant of drug-induced liver injury due to flucloxacillin. Nat Genet 2009; 41:816–819.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Gamazon ER, Huang RS, Cox NJ et al. Chemotherapeutic drug susceptibility associated SNPs are enriched in expression quantitative trait loci. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010; 107:9287–9292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Yang TP, Beazley C, Montgomery SB et al. Genevar: A database and Java application for the analysis and visualization of SNP-gene associations in eQTL studies. Bioinformatics 2010; 26:2474–2476.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Balls M. Modern alternative approaches to the problem of drug-induced liver injury. Altern Lab Anim— ATLA 2011; 39:103–107.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    O’Connell TM, Watkins PB. The application of metabonomics to predict drug-induced liver injury. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010; 88:394–399.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Chen M, Vijay V, Shi Q et al. FDA-approved drug labeling for the study of drug-induced liver injury. Drug Discov Today 2011; in press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Landes Bioscience and Springer Science+Business Media 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Balls
    • 1
  • Robert D. Combes
    • 2
  • Nirmala Bhogal
    • 3
  1. 1.FRAMENottinghamUK
  2. 2.NorwichUK
  3. 3.NottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations