A value of information framework for assessing the trade-offs associated with uncertainty, duration, and cost of chemical toxicity testing.

A number of investigators have explored the use of value of information (VOI) analysis to evaluate alternative information collection procedures in diverse decision-making contexts. This paper presents an analytic framework for determining the value of toxicity information used in risk-based decision making. The framework is specifically designed to explore the trade-offs between cost, timeliness, and uncertainty reduction associated with different toxicity-testing methodologies. The use of the proposed framework is demonstrated by two illustrative applications which, although based on simplified assumptions, show the insights that can be obtained through the use of VOI analysis. Specifically, these results suggest that timeliness of information collection has a significant impact on estimates of the VOI of chemical toxicity tests, even in the presence of smaller reductions in uncertainty. The framework introduces the concept of the expected value of delayed sample information, as an extension to the usual expected value of sample information, to accommodate the reductions in value resulting from delayed decision making. Our analysis also suggests that lower cost and higher throughput testing also may be beneficial in terms of public health benefits by increasing the number of substances that can be evaluated within a given budget. When the relative value is expressed in terms of return-on-investment per testing strategy, the differences can be substantial.

A Framework that Considers the Impacts of Time, Cost, and Uncertainty in the Determination of the Cost Effectiveness of Toxicity-Testing Methodologies.

Regulatory agencies are required to evaluate the impacts of thousands of chemicals. Toxicological tests currently used in such evaluations are time-consuming and resource intensive; however, advances in toxicology and related fields are providing new testing methodologies that reduce the cost and time required for testing. The selection of a preferred methodology is challenging because the new methodologies vary in duration and cost, and the data they generate vary in the level of uncertainty. This article presents a framework for performing cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of toxicity tests that account for cost, duration, and uncertainty. This is achieved by using an output metric-the cost per correct regulatory decision-that reflects the three elements. The framework is demonstrated in two example CEAs, one for a simple decision of risk acceptability and a second, more complex decision, involving the selection of regulatory actions. Each example CEA evaluates five hypothetical toxicity-testing methodologies which differ with respect to cost, time, and uncertainty. The results of the examples indicate that either a fivefold reduction in cost or duration can be a larger driver of the selection of an optimal toxicity-testing methodology than a fivefold reduction in uncertainty. Uncertainty becomes of similar importance to cost and duration when decisionmakers are required to make more complex decisions that require the determination of small differences in risk predictions. The framework presented in this article may provide a useful basis for the identification of cost-effective methods for toxicity testing of large numbers of chemicals.

Recent Advances in Probabilistic Dose-Response Assessment to Inform Risk-Based Decision Making.

Paradoxically, risk assessments for the majority of chemicals lack any quantitative characterization as to the likelihood, incidence, or severity of the risks involved. The relatively few cases where "risk" is truly quantified are based on either epidemiologic data or extrapolation of experimental animal cancer bioassay data. The paucity of chemicals and health endpoints for which such data are available severely limits the ability of decisionmakers to account for the impacts of chemical exposures on human health. The development by the World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety (WHO/IPCS) in 2014 of a comprehensive framework for probabilistic dose-response assessment has opened the door to a myriad of potential advances to better support decision making. Building on the pioneering work of Evans, Hattis, and Slob from the 1990s, the WHO/IPCS framework provides both a firm conceptual foundation as well as practical implementation tools to simultaneously assess uncertainty, variability, and severity of effect as a function of exposure. Moreover, such approaches do not depend on the availability of epidemiologic data, nor are they limited to cancer endpoints. Recent work has demonstrated the broad feasibility of such approaches in order to estimate the functional relationship between exposure level and the incidence or severity of health effects. While challenges remain, such as better characterization of the relationship between endpoints observed in experimental animal or in vitro studies and human health effects, the WHO/IPCS framework provides a strong basis for expanding the breadth of risk management decision contexts supported by chemical risk assessment.