Schröder K, Escher S E, Hoffmann-Dörr S, Kühne R, Simetska N, Mangelsdorf I
Fraunhofer ITEM, Nikolai-Fuchs-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Fraunhofer ITEM, Nikolai-Fuchs-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Toxicol Lett. 2016 Nov 2;261:32-40. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2016.08.013. Epub 2016 Aug 23.
The majority of repeated dose toxicity studies are available for the oral route. For risk assessment, however, data are needed from the relevant exposure route, i.e. inhalation or dermal. Instead of conducting additional animal studies, route-to-route (R2R) extrapolation may be performed. To explore uncertainties associated with this approach, we derived extrapolation factors (EF) based on no/lowest effect levels (NOELs/LOELs) in the Fraunhofer RepDose database. For R2R extrapolation oral-to-inhalation 246 study pairs on 110 chemicals were analyzed. Systemic effects triggered the LOELs in the underlying inhalation studies in 49.2%, local effects in 21.9% and both local and systemic effects in 30.9% of the data pairs. For systemic effects in inhalation studies an EF of 2.2 (95% confidence interval: 1.2-3.1) was derived, for local effects, the EF was 4.4 (95% confidence interval: 2.0-8.6), and the EF without distinguishing local or systemic effects (any EF) was 3.2 (95%, confidence interval: 1.7-5.0). Calculation with LOELs instead of NOELs, exposure duration and intrinsic properties of the chemical (toxicity or physicochemical properties) did not influence the EF significantly. For R2R extrapolation oral-to-dermal 46 study pairs on 28 chemicals were analyzed. An overall EF of 0.4 (95%, confidence interval: 0.2-0.9) was obtained. Here, we found a significant difference of EFs for low and high toxic chemicals. Overall, we conclude that reliable systemic NOELs/LOELs can be obtained for inhalation studies via R2R extrapolation from oral studies. Based on the data for any EF we propose to use an EF of 3, which covers also the uncertainty that unexpected local effects may occur in an inhalation study. For the dermal route, our dataset was too small to allow general conclusions, but the results so far do suggest that the current ECHA guidance is conservative when assuming that dermal absorption is as high as oral absorption.
大多数重复剂量毒性研究数据来自口服途径。然而,对于风险评估而言,需要来自相关暴露途径(即吸入或皮肤接触)的数据。与其开展额外的动物研究,不如进行途径间(R2R)外推。为探究与该方法相关的不确定性,我们基于弗劳恩霍夫重复剂量数据库中的无/最低效应水平(NOELs/LOELs)得出了外推因子(EF)。对于口服到吸入的R2R外推,分析了110种化学品的246对研究数据。在基础吸入研究中,全身效应引发最低观察到有害作用的剂量(LOELs)的情况在49.2%的数据对中出现,局部效应引发LOELs的情况在21.9%的数据对中出现,局部和全身效应均引发LOELs的情况在30.9%的数据对中出现。对于吸入研究中的全身效应,得出的EF为2.2(95%置信区间:1.2 - 3.1),对于局部效应,EF为4.4(95%置信区间:2.0 - 8.6),不区分局部或全身效应的EF(任何EF)为3.2(95%置信区间:1.7 - 5.0)。用LOELs而非NOELs进行计算、暴露持续时间以及化学品的内在特性(毒性或物理化学性质)对EF没有显著影响。对于口服到皮肤的R2R外推,分析了28种化学品的46对研究数据。得出的总体EF为0.4(95%置信区间:0.2 - 0.9)。在此,我们发现低毒和高毒化学品的EF存在显著差异。总体而言,我们得出结论,通过从口服研究进行R2R外推,可以为吸入研究获得可靠的全身NOELs/LOELs。基于任何EF的数据,我们建议使用3作为EF,这也涵盖了吸入研究中可能出现意外局部效应的不确定性。对于皮肤接触途径,我们的数据集太小,无法得出一般性结论,但目前的结果确实表明,欧洲化学品管理局(ECHA)当前的指南在假设皮肤吸收与口服吸收一样高时较为保守。