Roe Hannah M, Tsai Han-Hsaun D, Ball Nicholas, Wright Fred A, Chiu Weihsueh A, Rusyn Ivan
Department of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.
The Dow Chemical Company, Horgen, Switzerland.
ALTEX. 2025;42(1):22-38. doi: 10.14573/altex.2408292. Epub 2024 Nov 22.
An essential aspect of the EU’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation is the European Chemicals Agency’s (ECHA) evaluation of testing proposals submitted by registrants to address data gaps. Registrants may propose adaptations, such as read-across, to waive standard testing; however, it is widely believed that ECHA often finds justifications for read-across hypotheses inadequate. From 2008 to August 2023, 2,630 testing proposals were submitted to ECHA; of these, 1,538 had published decisions that were systematically evaluated in this study. Each document was manually reviewed and information extracted for further analyses, focusing on 17 assessment elements (AEs) from the Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF) and testing proposal evaluations (TPE). Each submission was classified as to the AEs relied upon by the registrants and by ECHA. Data was analyzed for patterns and associations. Adaptations were included in 23% (350) of proposals, with analogue (168) and group (136) read-across being most common. Of the 304 read-across hypotheses, 49% were accepted, with group read-across showing significantly higher odds of acceptance. Data analysis examined factors such as tonnage band (Annex), test guidelines, hypothesis AEs, and structural similarities of target and source substances. While decisions were often context-specific, several significant associations influencing acceptance emerged. Overall, this analysis provides a comprehensive overview of 15 years of experience with testing proposal-specific read-across adaptations by both registrants and ECHA. These data will inform future submissions as they identify most critical AEs to increase the odds of read-across acceptance.
欧盟《化学品注册、评估、授权和限制法规》(REACH)的一个重要方面是欧洲化学品管理局(ECHA)对注册人提交的用于填补数据空白的测试提案进行评估。注册人可以提出诸如类推法等变通方法,以豁免标准测试;然而,人们普遍认为ECHA常常认为类推法假设的理由不充分。从2008年到2023年8月,共向ECHA提交了2630份测试提案;其中,1538份已发布的决定在本研究中进行了系统评估。对每份文件进行了人工审查并提取信息以进行进一步分析,重点关注来自类推评估框架(RAAF)和测试提案评估(TPE)的17个评估要素(AE)。每份提交的文件都根据注册人和ECHA所依赖的AE进行了分类。对数据进行了模式和关联分析。23%(350份)的提案中包含了变通方法,其中类似物类推(168份)和群组类推(136份)最为常见。在304个类推假设中,49%被接受,群组类推显示出显著更高的被接受几率。数据分析考察了诸如吨位范围(附件)、测试指南、假设AE以及目标物质和源物质的结构相似性等因素。虽然决定往往因具体情况而异,但出现了一些影响接受度的显著关联。总体而言,本分析全面概述了注册人和ECHA在针对测试提案的类推变通方法方面15年的经验。这些数据将为未来的提交提供参考,因为它们确定了最关键的AE,以增加类推被接受的几率。