Recognition of Adverse and Nonadverse Effects in Toxicity Studies

Abstract

One of the most important quantitative outputs from toxicity studies is identification of the highest exposure level (dose or concentration) that does not cause treatment related effects that could be considered relevant to human health risk assessment. A review of regulatory and other scientifi c literature and of current practices has revealed a lack of consistency in definition and application of frequently used terms such as No Observed Effect Level (NOEL), No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL), adverse effect, biologically significant effect, or toxicologically significant effect. Moreover, no coherent criteria were found that could be used to guide consistent interpretation of toxicity studies, including the recognition and differentiation between adverse and nonadverse effects. This presentation will address these issues identified first by proposing a standard set of definitions for key terms such as NOEL and NOAEL that are frequently used to describe the overall outcome of a toxicity study. Second, a coherent framework is outlined that can assist the toxicologist in arriving at consistent study interpretation. This structured process involves two main steps. In the first, the toxicologist must decide whether differences from control values are treatment related or if they are chance deviations. In the second step, only those differences judged to be effects are further evaluated in order to discriminate between those that are adverse and those that are not. For each step, criteria are described that can be used to make consistent judgments. In differentiating an effect from a chance finding, consideration is given inter alia to dose response, spurious measurements in individual parameters, the precision of the measurement under evaluation, ranges of natural variation and the overall biological plausibility of the observation. In discriminating between the adverse and the non-adverse effect consideration is given to: whether the effect is an adaptive response, whether it is transient, the magnitude of the effect, its association with effects in other related endpoints, whether it is a precursor to a more signifi cant effect, whether it has an effect on the overall function of the organism, whether it is a specific effect on an organ or organ system or secondary to general toxicity or whether the effect is a predictable consequence of the experimental model. In interpreting complex studies it is recognised that a weight of the evidence approach, combining the criteria outlined here to reach an overall judgment, is the optimal way of applying the process. It is believed that the use of such a scheme will help to improve the consistency of study interpretation that is the foundation of hazard and risk assessment.

Keywords

Toxicity adverse effects nonadverse effects NOEL NOAEL hazard identification.

References

Ashby J. , Lefevre PA (2000). The prepubertal male rat assay as an alternative to the Hershberger castrated male rat assay for the detection of antiandrogens, oestrogens and metabolic modulators. JAppl Toxicol 20:35—47.

Burger GT , Renne RA , Sagartz JW , Ayres PH , Coggins CRE , Mosberg AT , Hayes AW (1989). Histologic changes in the respiratory tract induced by inhalation of xenobiotics: Physiologic adaptation or toxicity? Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 101: 521—542.

Chang PK , O'Hara GP , Hayes WA (1982). Principles and methods of acute and subchronic toxicity. In: Principles and Methods of Toxicology, Hayes WA (ed). Raven Press, New York, pp 1—52.

EPA (1995). The Use of the Benchmark Dose Approach in Health Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-94/007.

Hamada C. , Yoshino K. , Abe I. , Matsumoto K. , Nomura M. , Yoshimura I. (1998). Detection of an outlier and evaluation of its infl uence in chronic toxicity studies. Drug Infor J 32:201 —212.

Haseman JK , Huff J. , Boorman GA (1984). Use of historical control data in carcinogenicity studies in rodent. Toxicol Pathol 12: 126—135.

Miller FJ (1995). Uptake and fate of ozone in the respiratory tract . Toxicol Lett 82/83: 277—285.

Morgan KT (1997). A brief review of formaldehyd e carcinogenesi s in relation to rat nasal pathology and human health risk assessment. Toxicol Pathol 25: 291—307.

Paynter OE (1984). Oncogenic Potential: Guidance for Analysis and Evaluation of Long Term Rodent Studies. Evaluation procedure #1000.1 Office of Pesticide and Toxic Substances, EPA, Washington, DC.

10.

Willard MD , Twedt DC (1994). Gastrointestinal, pancreatic, and hepatic disorders . In: Small Animal Clinical Diagnosis by Laboratory Methods . 2nd ed, Willard MD , Tvedten H , Turnwald GH (eds). WB Saunders Pub.