Time extrapolation in regulatory risk assessment: The impact of study differences on the extrapolation factors

In human risk assessment, time extrapolation factors (EFs) account for differences in exposure duration of experimental studies. We calculated EFs based on N(L)OEL (no (lowest) observed effect level) ratios, dividing shorter-term by longer-term values. The ‘oral’ datasets comprised 302 EFs (subacute...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology 2020-04, Vol.112, p.104584, Article 104584
Hauptverfasser: Escher, S.E., Mangelsdorf, I., Hoffmann-Doerr, S., Partosch, F., Karwath, A., Schroeder, K., Zapf, A., Batke, M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:In human risk assessment, time extrapolation factors (EFs) account for differences in exposure duration of experimental studies. We calculated EFs based on N(L)OEL (no (lowest) observed effect level) ratios, dividing shorter-term by longer-term values. The ‘oral’ datasets comprised 302 EFs (subacute-subchronic) and 1059 EFs (subchronic-chronic). The ‘inhalation’ datasets contained 67 EFs (subacute-subchronic) and 226 EFs (subchronic-chronic). The experimental EF distribution oral:subchronic-chronic showed that study parameters like deviation in dose selection and spacing influence mainly the data variance. Exclusion of these influences led to a dataset representing more realistically the difference of N(L)OELs with prolonged treatment. This dataset showed a GM of 1.5, indicating that the impact of a longer treatment period on the study N(L)OEL is on average not high. A factor of 1.5 seemed to be also sufficiently conservative for subacute-subchronic and subchronic-chronic extrapolation (inhalation or oral exposure). EFs for groups of similar compounds did not differ, but for compounds with low and high NOEL values. Relatively toxic compounds (GM 1) might thus not require time extrapolation. Within and between chemical variance was analysed in the dataset oral:subchronic-chronic (GSD 4.8). The variance between chemicals should be considered within extrapolation by selecting an appropriate percentile for which a chemical variance factor is suggested. In risk assessment, often a combination of EFs is required. Our analysis indicates that such a combination will result in an accumulation of non-toxicological variance and therefore unrealistically high EFs. Further evaluations are needed to identify appropriate chemical variance factors for these situations. •Update of extrapolation factors based on large data inventory.•Impact of study design parameters on the EFs values.•Time EF of 1.5 for subacute-to-subchronic and subchronic to chronic extrapolation.•Variance factor to account for majority of compounds.
ISSN:0273-2300
1096-0295
DOI:10.1016/j.yrtph.2020.104584