Workshop report: Identifying key issues underpinning the selection of linear or non-linear dose–response extrapolation for human health risk assessment of systemic toxicants

Considerations for the Use of Mutation as a Regulatory Endpoint in Risk Assessment

Assessment of a chemical's potential to cause permanent changes in the genetic code has been a common practice in the industry and regulatory settings for decades. Furthermore, the genetic toxicity battery of tests has typically been employed during the earliest stages of the research and development programs of new product development. A positive outcome from such battery has a major impact on the chemical's utility, industrial hygiene, product stewardship practices, and product life cycle analysis, among many other decisions that need to be taken by the industry, even before the registration of a chemical is undertaken. Under the prevailing regulatory paradigm, the dichotomous (yes/no) evaluation of the chemical's genotoxic potential leads to a conservative, linear no-threshold (LNT) risk assessment, unless compelling and undeniable data to the contrary can be provided to satisfy regulators, typically in a number of different global jurisdictions. With the current advent of predictive methods, new testing paradigms, mode-of-action/adverse outcome pathways, and quantitative risk assessment approaches, various stakeholders are starting to employ these state-of-the-science methodologies to further the conversation on decision making and advance the regulatory paradigm beyond the dominant LNT status quo. This commentary describes these novel methodologies, relevant biological responses, and how these can affect internal and regulatory risk assessment approaches. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 61:84-93, 2020. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A Unified Probabilistic Framework for Dose-Response Assessment of Human Health Effects

BACKGROUND

When chemical health hazards have been identified, probabilistic dose-response assessment ("hazard characterization") quantifies uncertainty and/or variability in toxicity as a function of human exposure. Existing probabilistic approaches differ for different types of endpoints or modes-of-action, lacking a unifying framework.

OBJECTIVES

We developed a unified framework for probabilistic dose-response assessment.

METHODS

We established a framework based on four principles: a) individual and population dose responses are distinct; b) dose-response relationships for all (including quantal) endpoints can be recast as relating to an underlying continuous measure of response at the individual level; c) for effects relevant to humans, "effect metrics" can be specified to define "toxicologically equivalent" sizes for this underlying individual response; and d) dose-response assessment requires making adjustments and accounting for uncertainty and variability. We then derived a step-by-step probabilistic approach for dose-response assessment of animal toxicology data similar to how nonprobabilistic reference doses are derived, illustrating the approach with example non-cancer and cancer datasets.

RESULTS

Probabilistically derived exposure limits are based on estimating a "target human dose" (HDMI), which requires risk management-informed choices for the magnitude (M) of individual effect being protected against, the remaining incidence (I) of individuals with effects ≥ M in the population, and the percent confidence. In the example datasets, probabilistically derived 90% confidence intervals for HDMI values span a 40- to 60-fold range, where I = 1% of the population experiences ≥ M = 1%-10% effect sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some implementation challenges remain, this unified probabilistic framework can provide substantially more complete and transparent characterization of chemical hazards and support better-informed risk management decisions.

Why endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) challenge traditional risk assessment and how to respond

Endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) are a diverse group of "chemicals of emerging concern" which have attracted much interest from the research community since the 1990s. Today there is still no definitive risk assessment tool for EDCs. While some decision making organizations have attempted to design methodology guidelines to evaluate the potential risk from this broadly defined group of constituents, risk assessors still face many uncertainties and unknowns. Until a risk assessment paradigm is designed specifically for EDCs and is vetted by the field, traditional risk assessment tools may be used with caution to evaluate EDCs. In doing so, each issue of contention should be addressed with transparency in order to leverage available information and technology without sacrificing integrity or accuracy. The challenges that EDCs pose to traditional risk assessment are described in this article to assist in this process.