Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for skin corrosion and irritation with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation

Liverpool John Moores University and FRAME recently conducted a research project, sponsored by DEFRA, on the status of alternatives to animal testing with regard to the European Union REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system for the safety testing and risk assessment of chemicals. The project covered all the main toxicity endpoints associated with the REACH system. This report focuses on how to maximise the use of alternative methods (both in vitro and in silico) for skin corrosion and irritation testing within a tiered testing strategy. It considers the latest developments in in vitro testing, with particular reference to the reconstituted skin models which have now been now been successfully validated and independently endorsed as suitable for both skin corrosivity and irritancy testing within the EU.     

Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for acute systemic toxicity and toxicokinetics with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation

Liverpool John Moores University and FRAME conducted a joint research project, sponsored by Defra, on the status of alternatives to animal testing with regard to the European Union REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system for the safety testing and risk assessment of chemicals. The project covered all the main toxicity endpoints associated with REACH. This paper focuses on the use of alternative (non-animal) methods (both in vitro and in silico) for acute systemic toxicity and toxicokinetic testing. The paper reviews in vitro tests based on basal cytotoxicity and target organ toxicity, along with QSAR models and expert systems available for this endpoint. The use of PBPK modelling for the prediction of ADME properties is also discussed. These tests are then incorporated into a decision-tree style, integrated testing strategy, which also includes the use of refined in vivo acute toxicity tests, as a last resort. The implementation of the strategy is intended to minimise the use of animals in the testing of acute systemic toxicity and toxicokinetics, whilst satisfying the scientific and logistical demands of the EU REACH legislation.     

An integrated decision-tree testing strategy for repeat dose toxicity with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation

This paper presents some results of a joint research project conducted by FRAME and Liverpool John Moores University, and sponsored by Defra, on the status of alternatives to animal testing with regard to the European Union REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system for the safety testing and risk assessment of chemicals. The project covered all the main toxicity endpoints associated with REACH. This paper focuses on the use of alternative (non-animal) methods (both in vitro and in silico) for repeat dose (sub-acute, sub-chronic and chronic) toxicity testing. It reviews the limited number of in silico and in vitro tests available for this endpoint, and outlines new technologies which could be used in the future, e.g. the use of biomarkers and the 'omics' technologies. An integrated testing strategy is proposed, which makes use of as much non-animal data as possible, before any essential in vivo studies are performed. Although none of the non-animal tests are currently undergoing validation, their results could help to reduce the number of animals required for testing for repeat dose toxicity.     

Integrated decision-tree testing strategies for developmental and reproductive toxicity with respect to the requirements of the EU REACH legislation

Liverpool John Moores University and FRAME conducted a research project, sponsored by Defra, on the status of alternatives to animal testing with regard to the European Union REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system for the safety testing and risk assessment of chemicals. The project covered all the main toxicity endpoints associated with the REACH system. This paper focuses on the prospects for the use of alternative methods (both in vitro and in silico) in developmental and reproductive toxicity testing. It considers many tests based on primary cells and cell lines, and the available expert systems and QSARs for developmental and reproductive toxicity, and also covers tests for endocrine disruption. Ways in which reduction and refinement measures can be used are also discussed, particularly the use of an enhanced one-generation reproductive study, which could potentially replace the two-generation study, and therefore considerably reduce the number of animals required in reproductive toxicity. Decision-tree style integrated testing strategies are also proposed for developmental and reproductive toxicity and for endocrine disruption, followed by a number of recommendations for the future facilitation of developmental and reproductive toxicity testing, with respect to human risk assessment.     

In vitro tests within the REACH information strategies

Tonnage-based information requirements are specified in the proposal on the regulation on the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) in the European Union. The hazard assessment for toxic endpoints should be performed by using a tiered approach, i.e. as an information strategy (IS), starting with an evaluation of all of the data already available, including animal in vivo and in vitro data, and human evidence and case reports, as well as data from (Quantitative)-Structure Activity Relationships ([Q]SARs) or read-across, before any further testing is suggested. To contribute to the implementation of the REACH system, the Nordic countries launched two projects: 1) a review of currently used testing strategies, including a comparison with the REACH requirements; and 2) the development of detailed ISs for skin and eye irritation/corrosion. The review showed that the ISs and classification criteria for the selected endpoints are inconsistent in many cases. In the classification criteria, human data and in vivo test results are usually the prerequisites. Other types of information, such as data from in vitro studies, can sometimes be used, but usually as supportive evidence only. This differs from the REACH ISs, where QSARs, read-across and in vitro testing are important elements. In the other part of the project, an IS for skin and eye irritation/corrosion was proposed. The strategy was "tested" by using four high production volume (HPV) chemicals: hydrogen peroxide, methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE), trivalent chromium, and diantimony trioxide, but only MTBE and trivalent chromium are dealt with in this paper. The "test" revealed that in vivo data, human case reports and physical-chemical data were available and could be used in the evaluation. Classification could be based on the proposed IS and the existing data in all cases, except for the eye irritation/corrosion of trivalent chromium. Weight-of-evidence analysis appeared to be a useful step in the ISs proposed, and including it in the REACH strategies should be considered. For these chemicals, few in vitro and (Q)SAR data were available--more of these data would be generated, if the relevant guidance and legislation on classification were updated.     

A review of the status of alternative approaches to animal testing and the development of integrated testing strategies for assessing the toxicity of chemicals under REACH--a summary of a DEFRA-funded project conducted by Liverpool John Moores University and FRAME

Liverpool John Moores University and FRAME were recently awarded a DEFRA tender to conduct a review of the status of alternative approaches to animal testing, and to recommend further research with regard to the forthcoming European Union REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system for the safety testing and risk assessment of chemicals. The outcome of the project is summarised, including the prospects for in vitro and in silico testing, areas where reduction and refinement could be applied, and how decision-tree integrated testing strategies could be used to reduce the number of animals needed to fulfil the testing requirements of the REACH system. This paper is a prelude to a series of individual papers on detailed suggestions for applying non-animal methods to each of the major toxicity endpoints in REACH.     

A critical evaluation of the 2011 ECHA reports on compliance with the REACH and CLP regulations and on the use of alternatives to testing on animals for compliance with the REACH regulation

On 30 June 2011, the European Chemicals Agency published two reports, one on the functioning of the REACH system, the other on the use of alternatives to animal testing in compliance with that system. The data presented are based on information gained during the first registration period under the REACH system, which included high production volume chemicals and substances of very high concern, which have the most extensive information requirements. A total of 25,460 registration dossiers were received, covering 3,400 existing, so-called 'phase-in', substances, and 900 new, so-called 'non-phase-in', substances. Data sharing and the joint submission of data are reported to have worked successfully. In the registration dossiers for these substances, results from new animal tests were included for less than 1% of all the endpoints; testing proposals (required for 'higher-tier' information requirements) were submitted for 711 in vivo tests involving vertebrate animals. The registrants mainly used old, existing experimental data, or options for the adaptation (waiving) of information requirements, before collecting new information. For predicting substance toxicity, 'read-across' was the second most-used approach, followed by 'weight-of-evidence'. In vitro toxicity tests played a minor role, and were only used when the respective test methods had gained the status of regulatory acceptance. All in all, a successful start to the REACH programme was reported, particularly since, in contrast to most predictions, it did not contribute to a significant increase in toxicity testing in animals.     

A scientific and animal welfare assessment of the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines for the safety testing of chemicals under the European Union REACH system

We have assessed each of the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines (TGs) that were included in an annex to the Internet consultation issued by the European Commission relating to the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) legislation for the testing of new and existing chemical substances. Each guideline has been analysed with respect to its design and its scientific and animal welfare implications, the extent to which it makes use of modern techniques, and its suitability to be used in the REACH system for the testing of large numbers of chemicals. The scientific basis of the test and its justification are considered, as well as the numbers of animals required, and the potential adverse effects on them. The prospects and possibilities for applying the Three Rs (reduction, refinement and replacement) to each of the TGs are also discussed. We have proposed an overall testing strategy for how these TGs and other methods could best be deployed for chemicals testing, should it be necessary to fill data gaps. Certain TGs have been omitted from the strategy, when we have considered them to be unnecessary for chemicals testing. A series of recommendations has been made for improving the TGs with regard to both their scientific content and ways in which they could be better designed in relation to optimising the use of the animals concerned, and minimising adverse welfare consequences to them. Our investigations show that there is an urgent need to update the TGs to reflect modern techniques and methods, and to use current approaches for applying refinement strategies to improve the scientific and animal welfare aspects of the procedures used. Improvements can and should be made in all aspects of toxicity testing, from sample preparation, and animal housing, care and feeding, to dose formulation, test material administration, and the histopathological and clinical analysis of tissue samples. Opportunities for streamlining individual assays are very limited, but testing could be made more efficient by: a) only undertaking studies that provide relevant data; b) making greater use of screens and preliminary testing; c) applying some tests simultaneously to the same animals; d) using one sex; and e) eliminating redundant tests. In conclusion, it is clear that, as they stand, the OECD Health Effects TGs are unsuitable for use in the European Union REACH system, for which potentially very large numbers of laboratory animals will be needed for the testing of a very large number of chemicals.     

A scientific and animal welfare assessment of the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines for the safety testing of chemicals under the European Union REACH system

We have assessed each of the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines (TGs) that were included in an annex to the Internet consultation issued by the European Commission relating to the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) legislation for the testing of new and existing chemical substances. Each guideline has been analysed with respect to its design and its scientific and animal welfare implications, the extent to which it makes use of modern techniques, and its suitability to be used in the REACH system for the testing of large numbers of chemicals. The scientific basis of the test and its justification are considered, as well as the numbers of animals required, and the potential adverse effects on them. The prospects and possibilities for applying the Three Rs (reduction, refinement and replacement) to each of the TGs are also discussed. We have proposed an overall testing strategy for how these TGs and other methods could best be deployed for chemicals testing, should it be necessary to fill data gaps. Certain TGs have been omitted from the strategy, when we have considered them to be unnecessary for chemicals testing. A series of recommendations has been made for improving the TGs with regard to both their scientific content and ways in which they could be better designed in relation to optimising the use of the animals concerned, and minimising adverse welfare consequences to them. Our investigations show that there is an urgent need to update the TGs to reflect modern techniques and methods, and to use current approaches for applying refinement strategies to improve the scientific and animal welfare aspects of the procedures used. Improvements can and should be made in all aspects of toxicity testing, from sample preparation, and animal housing, care and feeding, to dose formulation, test material administration, and the histopathological and clinical analysis of tissue samples. Opportunities for streamlining individual assays are very limited, but testing could be made more efficient by: a) only undertaking studies that provide relevant data; b) making greater use of screens and preliminary testing; c) applying some tests simultaneously to the same animals; d) using one sex; and e) eliminating redundant tests. In conclusion, it is clear that, as they stand, the OECD Health Effects TGs are unsuitable for use in the European Union REACH system, for which potentially very large numbers of laboratory animals will be needed for the testing of a very large number of chemicals.     

The new EU REACH regulation has finally been adopted: is this the end of the campaign trail... or just the beginning?

The final EU REACH legislation has recently been adopted. This article considers the progress that has been made toward reducing the numbers of animals likely to be required to fulfil the testing requirements, and also considers the benefits to animal welfare and science that have arisen since the original REACH system proposals were published in 2003. Several positive changes have been made, including: the use of exposure-based testing; the requirement for scientific justification of any proposed animal testing; mandatory data sharing; and the fact that the EU is to take responsibility for the development and validation of alternative methods. While these changes are to be commended, there is still much room for improvement, particularly with respect to the adoption of integrated testing strategies that make maximum use of non-animal approaches to expedite the risk assessment process of existing chemicals, with the use of refined and updated animal tests only as a last resort.     

FRAME and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution: common recommendations for assessing risks posed by chemicals under the EU REACH system

This document discusses recommendations made by FRAME and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) with regard to the current European Commission proposals on the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) system for assessing the risks of chemicals to humans, wildlife and the environment. Of several common aims and recommendations, the two most important are: a) the greater use of non-animal testing methods, especially computational prediction methods (for example, [quantitative] structure-activity relationships, expert systems and biokinetic modelling) for prioritising chemicals for hazard assessment; and b) the greater use of intelligent exposure-based targeted risk assessment, with less emphasis being placed on tonnage-triggers. FRAME has produced a decision-tree testing scheme to illustrate the way in which these approaches could be used, together with in vitro test methods. This scheme has been slightly modified to take account of proposals subsequently made by the RCEP. In addition, FRAME points out that new and improved computational methods are needed through more coordinated research, and that these and existing methods need to be validated. The similarities between the independent publications of FRAME and the RCEP add weight to the recommendations that each have made concerning the implementation of the REACH system.     

FRAME and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution: common recommendations for assessing risks posed by chemicals under the EU REACH system

This document discusses recommendations made by FRAME and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) with regard to the current European Commission proposals on the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) system for assessing the risks of chemicals to humans, wildlife and the environment. Of several common aims and recommendations, the two most important are: a) the greater use of non-animal testing methods, especially computational prediction methods (for example, [quantitative] structure-activity relationships, expert systems and biokinetic modelling) for prioritising chemicals for hazard assessment; and b) the greater use of intelligent exposure-based targeted risk assessment, with less emphasis being placed on tonnage-triggers. FRAME has produced a decision-tree testing scheme to illustrate the way in which these approaches could be used, together with in vitro test methods. This scheme has been slightly modified to take account of proposals subsequently made by the RCEP. In addition, FRAME points out that new and improved computational methods are needed through more coordinated research, and that these and existing methods need to be validated. The similarities between the independent publications of FRAME and the RCEP add weight to the recommendations that each have made concerning the implementation of the REACH system.     

An overall strategy for the testing of chemicals for human hazard and risk assessment under the EU REACH system

In its White Paper, Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy, published in 2001, the European Commission (EC) proposed the REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of CHemicals) system to deal with both existing and new chemical substances. This system is based on a top-down approach to toxicity testing, in which the degree of toxicity information required is dictated primarily by production volume (tonnage). If testing is to be based on traditional methods, very large numbers of laboratory animals could be needed in response to the REACH system, causing ethical, scientific and logistical problems that would be incompatible with the time-schedule envisaged for testing. The EC has emphasised the need to minimise animal use, but has failed to produce a comprehensive strategy for doing so. The present document provides an overall scheme for predictive toxicity testing, whereby the non-animal methods identified and discussed in a recent and comprehensive ECVAM document, could be used in a tiered approach to provide a rapid and scientifically justified basis for the risk assessment of chemicals for their toxic effects in humans. The scheme starts with a preliminary risk assessment process (involving available information on hazard and exposure), followed by testing, based on physicochemical properties and (Q)SAR approaches. (Q)SAR analyses are used in conjunction with expert system and biokinetic modelling, and information on metabolism and identification of the principal metabolites in humans. The resulting information is then combined with production levels and patterns of use to assess potential human exposure. The nature and extent of any further testing should be based strictly on the need to fill essential information gaps in order to generate adequate risk assessments, and should rely on non-animal methods, as far as possible. The scheme also includes a feedback loop, so that new information is used to improve the predictivity of computational expert systems. Several recommendations are made, the most important of which is that the European Union (EU) should actively promote the improvement and validation of (Q)SAR models and expert systems, and computer-based methods for biokinetic modelling, since these offer the most realistic and most economical solution to the need to test large numbers of chemicals.     

Integrated testing strategies for use in the EU REACH system

Integrated testing strategies have been proposed to facilitate the process of chemicals risk assessment to fulfil the requirements of the proposed EU REACH system. Here, we present individual, decision-tree style, strategies for the eleven major toxicity endpoints of the REACH system, including human health effects and ecotoxicity. These strategies make maximum use of non-animal approaches to hazard identification, before resorting to traditional animal test methods. Each scheme: a) comprises a mixture of validated and non-validated assays (distinguished in the schemes); and b) decision points at key stages to allow the cessation of further testing, should it be possible to use the available information to classify and label and/or undertake risk assessment. The rationale and scientific justification for each of the schemes, with respect to the validation status of the tests involved and their individual advantages and limitations, will be discussed in detail in a series of future publications.     

An overall strategy for the testing of chemicals for human hazard and risk assessment under the EU REACH system

In its White Paper, "Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy," published in 2001, the European Commission (EC) proposed the REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of CHemicals) system to deal with both existing and new chemical substances. This system is based on a top-down approach to toxicity testing, in which the degree of toxicity information required is dictated primarily by production volume (tonnage). If testing is to be based on traditional methods, very large numbers of laboratory animals could be needed in response to the REACH system, causing ethical, scientific and logistical problems that would be incompatible with the time-schedule envisaged for testing. The EC has emphasised the need to minimise animal use, but has failed to produce a comprehensive strategy for doing so. The present document provides an overall scheme for predictive toxicity testing, whereby the non-animal methods identified and discussed in a recent and comprehensive ECVAM document, could be used in a tiered approach to provide a rapid and scientifically justified basis for the risk assessment of chemicals for their toxic effects in humans. The scheme starts with a preliminary risk assessment process (involving available information on hazard and exposure), followed by testing, based on physicochemical properties and (Q)SAR approaches. (Q)SAR analyses are used in conjunction with expert system and biokinetic modelling, and information on metabolism and identification of the principal metabolites in humans. The resulting information is then combined with production levels and patterns of use to assess potential human exposure. The nature and extent of any further testing should be based strictly on the need to fill essential information gaps in order to generate adequate risk assessments, and should rely on non-animal methods, as far as possible. The scheme also includes a feedback loop, so that new information is used to improve the predictivity of computational expert systems. Several recommendations are made, the most important of which is that the European Union (EU) should actively promote the improvement and validation of (Q)SAR models and expert systems, and computer-based methods for biokinetic modelling, since these offer the most realistic and most economical solution to the need to test large numbers of chemicals.     

Report of the EPAA-ECVAM workshop on the validation of Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS)

The use of Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS) permits the combination of diverse types of chemical and toxicological data for the purposes of hazard identification and characterisation. In November 2008, the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA), together with the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), held a workshop on Overcoming Barriers to Validation of Non-animal Partial Replacement Methods/Integrated Testing Strategies, in Ispra, Italy, to discuss the extent to which current ECVAM approaches to validation can be used to evaluate partial replacement in vitro test methods (i.e. as potential ITS components) and ITS themselves. The main conclusions of these discussions were that formal validation was only considered necessary for regulatory purposes (e.g. the replacement of a test guideline), and that current ECVAM approaches to validation should be adapted to accommodate such test methods. With these conclusions in mind, a follow-up EPAA-ECVAM workshop was held in October 2009, to discuss the extent to which existing validation principles are applicable to the validation of ITS test methods, and to develop a draft approach for the validation of such test methods and/or overall ITS for regulatory purposes. This report summarises the workshop discussions that started with a review of the current validation methodologies and the presentation of two case studies (skin sensitisation and acute toxicity), before covering the definition of ITS and their components, including their validation and regulatory acceptance. The following main conclusions/recommendations were made: that the validation of a partial replacement test method (for application as part of a testing strategy) should be differentiated from the validation of an in vitro test method for application as a stand-alone replacement, especially with regard to its predictive capacity; that, in the former case, the predictive capacity of the whole testing strategy (rather than of the individual test methods) would be more important, especially if the individual test methods had a high biological relevance; that ITS allowing for flexible and ad hoc approaches cannot be validated, whereas the validation of clearly defined ITS would be feasible, although practically quite difficult; and that test method developers should be encouraged to develop and submit to ECVAM not only full replacement test methods, but also partial replacement methods to be placed as parts of testing strategies. The added value from the formal validation of testing strategies, and the requirements needed in view of regulatory acceptance of the data, require further informed discussion within the EPAA forum on the basis of case studies provided by industry.     

Intelligent testing strategies for chemicals testing -- a case of more haste, less speed?

The prospects for using (Q)SAR modelling, read-across (chemical) and other non-animal approaches as part of integrated testing strategies for chemical risk assessment, within the framework of the EU REACH legislation, are considered. The potential advantages and limitations of (Q)SAR modelling and read-across methods for chemical regulatory risk assessment are reviewed. It is concluded that it would be premature to base a testing strategy on chemical-based computational modelling approaches, until such time as criteria to validate them for their reliability and relevance by using independent and transparent procedures, have been agreed. This is mainly because of inherent problems in validating and accepting (Q)SARs for regulatory use in ways that are analogous to those that have been developed and applied for in vitro tests. Until this issue has been resolved, it is recommended that testing strategies should be developed which comprise the integrated use of computational and read-across approaches. These should be applied in a cautious and judicious way, in association with available tissue culture methods, and in conjunction with metabolism and biokinetic studies. Such strategies should be intelligently applied by being driven by exposure information (based on bioavailability, not merely on production volume) and hazard information needs, in preference to a tick-box approach. In the meantime, there should be increased efforts to develop improved (Q)SARs, expert systems and new in vitro methods, and, in particular, ways to expedite their validation and acceptance must be found and prospectively agreed with all major stakeholders.