This paper offers a Bayesian Value-of-Information (VOI) analysis for guiding the development of non-animal testing strategies, balancing information gains from testing with the expected social gains and costs from the adoption of regulatory decisions. Testing is assumed to have value, if, and only if, the information revealed from testing triggers a welfare-improving decision on the use (or non-use) of a substance. As an illustration, our VOI model is applied to a set of five individual non-animal prediction methods used for skin sensitisation hazard assessment, seven battery combinations of these methods, and 236 sequential 2-test and 3-test strategies. Their expected values are quantified and compared to the expected value of the local lymph node assay (LLNA) as the animal method. We find that battery and sequential combinations of non-animal prediction methods reveal a significantly higher expected value than the LLNA. This holds for the entire range of prior beliefs. Furthermore, our results illustrate that the testing strategy with the highest expected value does not necessarily have to follow the order of key events in the sensitisation adverse outcome pathway (AOP).
ECHA (2014). The Use of Alternatives to Testing on Animals for the REACH Regulation. Second report under Article 117(3) of the REACH Regulation, 131 pp. Helsinki, Finland: European Chemicals Agency.
EC (2003). Directive 2003/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 27 February 2003 amending Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products. Official Journal of the European UnionL66, 11.02.2003, 26–35.
4.
EC (2006). Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/ 94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Official Journal of the European UnionL396, 30.12.2006, 1–849.
5.
HartungT. (2010). Toxicology for the twenty-first century. Nature, London460, 208–212.
6.
ReisingerK., HoffmannS., AlépéeN., AshikagaT., BarrosoJ., ElcombeC., GellatlyN., GalbiatiV., GibbsS., GrouxH., HibatallahJ., KellerD., KernP., KlaricM., KolleS., KuehnlJ., LambrechtsN., LindstedtM., MilletM., Martinozzi-TeissierS., NatschA., PetersohnD., PikeI., SakaguchiH., SchepkyA., TailhardatM., TemplierM., Van VlietE., & MaxwellG. (2015). Systematic evaluation of non-animal test methods for skin sensitisation safety assessment. Toxicology in Vitro29, 259–272.
7.
GerberickG.F., VassalloJ.D., FoertschL.M., PriceB.B., ChaneyJ.G., & LepoittevinJ-P. (2007). Quantification of chemical peptide reactivity for screening contact allergens: A classification tree model approach. Toxicological Sciences97, 417–427.
8.
SakaguchiH., AshikagaT., MiyazawaM., YoshidaY., ItoY., YoneyamaK., HirotaM., ItagakiH., ToyodaH., & SuzukiH. (2006). Development of an in vitro skin sensitization test using human cell lines; human Cell Line Activation Test (h-CLAT) II. An inter-laboratory study of the h-CLAT. Toxicology in Vitro20, 774–784.
9.
EmterR., EllisG., & NatschA. (2010). Performance of a novel keratinocyte-based reporter cell line to screen skin sensitizers in vitro.Toxicology & Applied Pharmacology, 245, 281–290.
10.
RamirezT., MehlingA., KolleS.N., WruckC.J., TeubnerW., EltzeT., AumannA., UrbischD., van RavenzwaayB., & LandsiedelR. (2014). LuSens: A keratinocyte based ARE reporter gene assay for use in integrated testing strategies for skin sensitization hazard identification. Toxicology in Vitro28, 1428–1497.
11.
OECD (2015). OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Test No. 442C: In Chemico Skin Sensitisation: Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay (DPRA), 19 pp. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
12.
OECD (2015). OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Test No. 442D: In Vitro Skin Sensitisation: ARE-Nrf2 Luciferase Test Method, 20 pp. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
13.
WorthA., BarrosoJ., BremerS., BurtonJ., CasatiS., CoeckeS., CorviR., DesprezB., DumontC., GouliarmouV., GoumenouM., GräpelR., GriesingerC., HalderM., Janusch RoiA., KienzlerA., MadiaF., MunnS., NepelskaM., PainiA., PriceA., PrietoP., RolakiA., SchäfferM., TriebeJ., WhelanM., WittwehrC., & ZuangV. (2014). Alternative Methods for Regulatory Toxicology — A State-of-the-art Review, 461 pp. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
PatlewiczG., KusevaC., KesovaA., PopovaI., ZhechevT., PavlovT., RobertsD.W., & Meken yanO. (2014). Towards AOP application — Implementation of an integrated approach to testing and assessment (IATA) into a pipeline tool for skin sensitization. Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology69, 529–545.
17.
Van der VeenJ.W., RorijeE., EmterR., NatschA., van LoverenH., & EzendamJ. (2014). Evaluating the performance of integrated approaches for hazard identification of skin sensitizing chemicals. Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology69, 371–379.
18.
VinkenM., WhelanM., & RogiersV. (2014). Adverse outcome pathways: Hype or hope?Archives of Toxicology, 88, 1–2.
19.
JaworskaJ., DancikY., KernP., GerberickF., & NatschA. (2013). Bayesian integrated testing strategy to assess skin sensitization potency: From theory to practice. Journal of Applied Toxicology33, 1353–1364.
20.
PatlewiczG., SimonT.W., RowlandsJ.C., BudinskyR.A., & BeckerR.A. (2015). Proposing a scientific confidence framework to help support the application of adverse outcome pathways for regulatory purposes. Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology71, 463–477.
21.
TollefsenK.E., ScholzS., CroninM.T., EdwardsS.W., de KnechtJ., CroftonK., Garcia-ReyeroN., HartungT., WorthA., & PatlewiczG. (2014). Applying adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) to support integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA). Regulatory Toxicology & Pharma cology70, 629–640.
22.
VinkenM. (2013). The adverse outcome pathway concept: A pragmatic tool in toxicology. Toxicology312, 158–165.
23.
GabbertS., & WeikardH-P. (2013). Sequential testing of chemicals when costs matter: A value of information approach. Human & Ecological Risk Assessment19, 1067–1088.
24.
KochL., & AshfordN.A. (2006). Rethinking the role of information in chemicals policy: Implications for TSCA and REACH. Journal of Cleaner Production14, 31–46.
25.
RorijeE., AldenbergT., BuistH., KroeseD., & SchüürmannG. (2013). The OSIRIS Weight of Evidence approach: ITS for skin sensitisation. Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology67, 146–156.
26.
LuechtefeldT., MaertensA., McKimJ.M., HartungT., KleensangA., & Sá-RochaV. (2015). Probabilistic hazard assessment for skin sensitization potency by dose–response modeling using feature elimination instead of quantitative structure–activity relationships. Journal of Applied Toxicology35, 1361–1371.
27.
JaworskaJ., HarolA., KernP.S., & GerberickG.F. (2011). Integrating non-animal test information into an adaptive testing strategy — Skin sensitization proof of concept case. ALTEX28, 211–225.
28.
JaworskaJ., & HoffmannS. (2010). Integrated Testing Strategy (ITS) — Opportunities to better use existing data and guide future testing in toxicology. ALTEX27, 231–242.
29.
UrbischD., MehlingA., GuthK., RamirezT., HonarvarN., KolleS., LandsiedelR., JaworskaJ., KernP.S., GerberickF., NatschA., EmterR., AshikagaT., MiyazawaM., & SakaguchiH. (2015). Assessing skin sensitization hazard in mice and men using non-animal test methods. Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology71, 337–351.
30.
BasketterD., CrozierJ., HubeschB., ManouI., MehlingA., & ScheelJ. (2012). Optimised testing strategies for skin sensitization — The LLNA and beyond. Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology64, 9–16.
31.
MehlingA., ErikssonT., EltzeT., KolleS., RamirezT., TeubnerW., van RavenzwaayB., & LandsiedelR. (2012). Non-animal test methods for predicting skin sensitization potentials. Archives of Toxicology86, 1273–1295.
32.
YokotaF., GrayG., HammittJ.K., & ThompsonK.M. (2004). Tiered chemical testing: A value of information approach. Risk Analysis24, 1625–1639.
33.
YokotaF., & ThompsonK.M. (2004). Value of Information Analysis in environmental health risk management decisions: Past, present, and future. Risk Analysis24, 635–650.
34.
ClaxtonK., GinnellyL., SculpherM., PhilipsZ., & PalmerS. (2004). A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technology Assessment8, 3–60.
35.
ClaxtonK. (1999). Bayesian approaches to the value of information: Implications for the regulation of new pharmaceuticals. Health Economics8, 269–274.
36.
GabbertS., & WeikardH-P. (2010). A theory of chemicals regulation and testing. Natural Resources Forum34, 155–164.
37.
LaveL.B., EnneverF.K., RosenkranzH.S., OmennG., BremerS., & BurtonJ. (1988). Information value of the rodent bioassay. Nature, London336, 631–633.
38.
van LeeuwenC.J., & VermeireT.G. (ed.) (2007). Risk Assessment of Chemicals. An Introduction, 686 pp. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
39.
WallaceA.D., & ErnestH. (2012). Toxic endpoints in the study of human exposure to environmental chemicals. In Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science, Ch. 4, Vol. 112, pp. 89–115. Cambridge, MA, USA: Academic Press.
40.
HoffmannS., & HartungT. (2005). Diagnosis: Toxic! – Trying to apply approaches of clinical diagnostics and prevalence in toxicology consider ations. Toxicological Sciences85, 422–428.
41.
Schouw van derY.T., VerbeekA.L., & RuijsS.H. (1995). Guidelines for the assessment of new diagnostic tests. Investigative Radiology30, 334–340.
42.
VarianH.R., BergstromT.C., & WestJ.E. (2003). Intermediate Microeconomics: Test Item File, 416 pp. New York, NY, USA: W.W. Norton & Co.
43.
HeldL., & BoveD.S. (2014). Applied Statistical Inference: Likelihood and Bayes, 376 pp. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
44.
CooperJ.A., SaracciR., & ColeP. (1979). Describing the validity of carcinogen screening tests. British Journal of Cancer39, 87–89.
45.
BauchC., KolleS.N., RamirezT., EltzeT., FabianE., MehlingA., TeubnerW., van RavenzwaayB., & LandsiedelR. (2012). Putting the parts together: Combining in vitro methods to test for skin sensitizing potentials. Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology63, 489–504.
46.
JaworskaJ., GabbertS., & AldenbergT. (2010). Towards optimization of chemical testing under REACH: A Bayesian network approach to Integrated Testing Strategies. Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology57, 157–167.
NorlenH., WorthA.P., & GabbertS. (2014). A tutorial for analysing the cost-effectiveness of alternative methods for assessing chemical toxicity: The case of acute oral toxicity prediction. ATLA42, 115–127.
49.
OECD (2012). The Adverse Outcome Pathway for Skin Sensitisation Initiated by Covalent Binding to Protein Part 1: Scientific Evidence. Series on Testing and Assessment No. 168, 59 pp. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
50.
NatschA., RyanC.A., FoertschL., EmterR., JaworskaJ., GerberickF., & KernP. (2013). A dataset on 145 chemicals tested in alternative assays for skin sensitization undergoing prevalidation. Journal of Applied Toxicology33, 1337–1352.
BasketterD.A., AlépéeN., AshikagaT., BarrosoJ., GilmourN., GoebelC., HibatallahJ., HoffmannS., KernP., Martinozzi-TeissierS., MaxwellG., ReisingerK., SakaguchiH., SchepkyA., TailhardatM., & TemplierM. (2014). Categorization of chemicals according to their relative human skin sensitizing potency. Dermatitis25, 11–21.
53.
EnneverF.K., RosenkranzH.S., LaveL.B., & OmennG.S. (1990). Value-of-information analysis of testing strategies: Estimating the effect of uncertainty about the proportion of chemicals that are true human carcinogens. Progress in Clinical & Biological Research, 340D, 295–304.
54.
OmennG.S., StuebbeS., & LaveL.B. (1995). Predictions of rodent carcinogenicity testing results: Interpretation in light of the Lave-Omenn value-of-information model. Molecular Carcinogenesis14, 37–45.
HalvarssonK., & LodenM. (2007). Increasing quality of life by improving the quality of skin in patients with atopic dermatitis. International Journal of Cosmetic Science29, 69–83.
57.
RicciG., BendandiB., PagliaraL., PatriziA., & MasiM. (2006). Atopic dermatitis in Italian children: Evaluation of its economic impact. Journal of Pediatric Health Care20, 311–315.
58.
SætterstrømB., OlsenJ., & JohansenJ.D. (2014). Cost-of-illness of patients with contact dermatitis in Denmark. Contact Dermatitis71, 154–161.
59.
SteinV., DornerT., LawrenceK., KunzeM., & RiederA. (2007). Economic aspects of allergies: Status and prospects for Austria. Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift157, 248–254.
60.
VerboomP., Hakkaart-Van RoijenL., SturkenboomM., De ZeeuwR., MenkeH., & RuttenF. (2002). The cost of atopic dermatitis in the Netherlands: An international comparison. British Journal of Dermatology147, 716–724.
61.
WittC.M., BrinkhausB., PachD., ReinholdT., WruckK., RollS., JackelT., StaabD., WegscheiderK., & WillichS.N. (2009). Homeopathic versus conventional therapy for atopic eczema in children: Medical and economic results. Dermatology219, 329–340.
62.
ECHA (2014). Stated-preference Study to Examine the Economic Value of Benefits of Avoiding Selected Adverse Human Health Outcomes Due to Exposure to Chemicals in the European Union. Part I: Sensitization & Dose Toxicity, 113 pp. Helsinki, Finland: European Chemicals Agency.
63.
SchnuchA., GeierJ., UterW., FroschP.J., LehmacherW., AbererW., AgathosM., ArnoldR., FuchsT., LaubsteinB., LischkaG., PietrzykP.M., RakoskiJ., RichterG., & RueffF. (1997). National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Contact Dermatitis37, 200–209.
Leiva-SalinasM., FrancesL., Marin-CabanasI., BouretA.M., & SilvestreJ.F. (2014). Methylchloro-isothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone and methyl-isothiazolinone allergies can be detected by 200ppm of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone patch test concentration. Dermatitis25, 130–134.
66.
SchnuchA., LessmannH., GeierJ., & UterW. (2011). Contact allergy to preservatives. Analysis of IVDK data 1996–2009. British Journal of Dermatology164, 1316–1325.
67.
UterW., GefellerO., GeierJ., & SchnuchA. (2012). Methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothia-zolinone contact sensitization: Diverging trends in subgroups of IVDK patients in a period of 19 years. Contact Dermatitis67, 125–129.
68.
SchnuchA., GeierJ., LessmannH., ArnoldR., & UterW. (2012). Surveillance of contact allergies: Methods and results of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). Allergy67, 847–857.
ThyssenJ.P., LinnebergA., MennéT., & JohansenJ.D. (2007). The epidemiology of contact allergy in the general population — prevalence and main findings. Contact Dermatitis57, 287–299.
