Application of AOPs to assist regulatory assessment of chemical risks - Case studies, needs and recommendations.

While human regulatory risk assessment (RA) still largely relies on animal studies, new approach methodologies (NAMs) based on in vitro, in silico or non-mammalian alternative models are increasingly used to evaluate chemical hazards. Moreover, human epidemiological studies with biomarkers of effect (BoE) also play an invaluable role in identifying health effects associated with chemical exposures. To move towards the next generation risk assessment (NGRA), it is therefore crucial to establish bridges between NAMs and standard approaches, and to establish processes for increasing mechanistically-based biological plausibility in human studies. The Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) framework constitutes an important tool to address these needs but, despite a significant increase in knowledge and awareness, the use of AOPs in chemical RA remains limited. The objective of this paper is to address issues related to using AOPs in a regulatory context from various perspectives as it was discussed in a workshop organized within the European Union partnerships HBM4EU and PARC in spring 2022. The paper presents examples where the AOP framework has been proven useful for the human RA process, particularly in hazard prioritization and characterization, in integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA), and in the identification and validation of BoE in epidemiological studies. Nevertheless, several limitations were identified that hinder the optimal usability and acceptance of AOPs by the regulatory community including the lack of quantitative information on response-response relationships and of efficient ways to map chemical data (exposure and toxicity) onto AOPs. The paper summarizes suggestions, ongoing initiatives and third-party tools that may help to overcome these obstacles and thus assure better implementation of AOPs in the NGRA.

In vivo safety testing of Antibody Drug Conjugates.

Antibody Drug Conjugates (ADCs) are complex multi-domain biotherapeutics which combine, with the aid of a chemical linker, tumor-targeting antibodies with potent small molecule cytotoxicants (also called warhead or payload) for the treatment of cancer. ADCs are a rapidly growing class of pharmaceuticals with nine FDA-approved drugs already on the market and over eighty at different stages of clinical development, and also an increasing number under evaluation for non-oncological indications. Off-target toxicity and a narrow therapeutic index has been a problem with ADCs. This has driven the search for better targeting (disease models, cell surface antigens), linker stability, and payload specificity. Analysis of regulatory approval documents, scientific publications and ICH guidance shows that safety evaluation of ADCs requires novel integrated strategies different from both standard chemotherapy and antibody-based products, e.g. development and validation of ADC analytical assays. There is no ADC-specific guidance on safety evaluation; current guidance emphasises the need for an adaptive approach but more ADC-specific guidance is now arguably possible. The data now available will help to optimize primary target specificity, select appropriate combination partners, develop in silico models, and provide guidance for preclinical and clinical safety evaluation for the next generation of this class of multi-domain therapeutics.

Perspective on Health Effects of Endocrine Disruptors with a Focus on Data Gaps.

Screening for endocrine disrupting properties at the molecular and cellular level is developing rapidly, but can epidemiology bridge the gap to human health impact? Reviews by the World Health Organization and the United States Endocrine Society listed diseases which may be related to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Much of the evidence relating these diseases to EDCs is from animal and epidemiological studies, many with significant weaknesses. What human health data sources are available? Some examples are provided from Nordic countries, Denmark, France, Switzerland, and the United States. Health register shortcomings are noted, including diagnostic criteria and "signal-to-noise" ratio (high background incidence rates). Issues with exposure assessment (human biomonitoring), data governance (FAIR principles), legislative hurdles, and patient consent are also illustrated. For all the above reasons, it is clear why generating reliable long-term data for human diseases putatively associated with EDCs has not yet been achieved and thus why it is difficult to bridge the gap between molecular/cellular/animal toxicity data and human health risks of EDCs. This will require international cooperation, sustained support, and public acceptance.

Adverse Outcome Pathway Bridge Building from Research to Regulation.

The adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework is a new way of generating knowledge from existing data for hazard assessment. Computational tools will help, especially with further development and adoption of data quality guidance.

A quantitative risk assessment for skin sensitizing plant protection products: Linking derived No-Effect levels (DNELs) with agricultural exposure models.

Chemical skin sensitizers produce allergic contact dermatitis, which is one of the most frequent occupational diseases associated with chemical exposures. Skin exposure is the major route of exposure when using plant protection products (PPPs). Therefore, skin sensitization is an important factor to be addressed during the regulatory risk assessment of PPPs. The main regulatory decision criterion considered when performing risk assessment for skin sensitizers is the dose applied. The equally important criteria "potency of the substance" is insufficiently considered by two potency categories as potency may vary up to five orders of magnitude. "Frequency of exposure" to the skin sensitizer is not considered at all. Consequently, an improved risk assessment methodology is essential to adequately assess health risks from skin sensitizers, especially for agricultural operators using PPPs. A quantitative risk assessment (QRA) approach for addressing PPPs sensitizing potential is proposed here. This QRA combines a methodology to derive a substance-specific threshold for skin sensitizers, a Derived No-Effect Level (DNEL), and an agricultural exposure model used for assessing chronic health risks of PPPs. The proposed QRA for skin sensitizing PPPs is a clear improvement over current risk assessment to ensure the safe use of skin sensitizers in an occupational context.

Systems Toxicology: Real World Applications and Opportunities.

Systems Toxicology aims to change the basis of how adverse biological effects of xenobiotics are characterized from empirical end points to describing modes of action as adverse outcome pathways and perturbed networks. Toward this aim, Systems Toxicology entails the integration of in vitro and in vivo toxicity data with computational modeling. This evolving approach depends critically on data reliability and relevance, which in turn depends on the quality of experimental models and bioanalysis techniques used to generate toxicological data. Systems Toxicology involves the use of large-scale data streams ("big data"), such as those derived from omics measurements that require computational means for obtaining informative results. Thus, integrative analysis of multiple molecular measurements, particularly acquired by omics strategies, is a key approach in Systems Toxicology. In recent years, there have been significant advances centered on in vitro test systems and bioanalytical strategies, yet a frontier challenge concerns linking observed network perturbations to phenotypes, which will require understanding pathways and networks that give rise to adverse responses. This summary perspective from a 2016 Systems Toxicology meeting, an international conference held in the Alps of Switzerland, describes the limitations and opportunities of selected emerging applications in this rapidly advancing field. Systems Toxicology aims to change the basis of how adverse biological effects of xenobiotics are characterized, from empirical end points to pathways of toxicity. This requires the integration of in vitro and in vivo data with computational modeling. Test systems and bioanalytical technologies have made significant advances, but ensuring data reliability and relevance is an ongoing concern. The major challenge facing the new pathway approach is determining how to link observed network perturbations to phenotypic toxicity.

International STakeholder NETwork (ISTNET): creating a developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) testing road map for regulatory purposes.

A major problem in developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) risk assessment is the lack of toxicological hazard information for most compounds. Therefore, new approaches are being considered to provide adequate experimental data that allow regulatory decisions. This process requires a matching of regulatory needs on the one hand and the opportunities provided by new test systems and methods on the other hand. Alignment of academically and industrially driven assay development with regulatory needs in the field of DNT is a core mission of the International STakeholder NETwork (ISTNET) in DNT testing. The first meeting of ISTNET was held in Zurich on 23-24 January 2014 in order to explore the concept of adverse outcome pathway (AOP) to practical DNT testing. AOPs were considered promising tools to promote test systems development according to regulatory needs. Moreover, the AOP concept was identified as an important guiding principle to assemble predictive integrated testing strategies (ITSs) for DNT. The recommendations on a road map towards AOP-based DNT testing is considered a stepwise approach, operating initially with incomplete AOPs for compound grouping, and focussing on key events of neurodevelopment. Next steps to be considered in follow-up activities are the use of case studies to further apply the AOP concept in regulatory DNT testing, making use of AOP intersections (common key events) for economic development of screening assays, and addressing the transition from qualitative descriptions to quantitative network modelling.

Systems toxicology: from basic research to risk assessment.

Systems Toxicology is the integration of classical toxicology with quantitative analysis of large networks of molecular and functional changes occurring across multiple levels of biological organization. Society demands increasingly close scrutiny of the potential health risks associated with exposure to chemicals present in our everyday life, leading to an increasing need for more predictive and accurate risk-assessment approaches. Developing such approaches requires a detailed mechanistic understanding of the ways in which xenobiotic substances perturb biological systems and lead to adverse outcomes. Thus, Systems Toxicology approaches offer modern strategies for gaining such mechanistic knowledge by combining advanced analytical and computational tools. Furthermore, Systems Toxicology is a means for the identification and application of biomarkers for improved safety assessments. In Systems Toxicology, quantitative systems-wide molecular changes in the context of an exposure are measured, and a causal chain of molecular events linking exposures with adverse outcomes (i.e., functional and apical end points) is deciphered. Mathematical models are then built to describe these processes in a quantitative manner. The integrated data analysis leads to the identification of how biological networks are perturbed by the exposure and enables the development of predictive mathematical models of toxicological processes. This perspective integrates current knowledge regarding bioanalytical approaches, computational analysis, and the potential for improved risk assessment.

Corrigendum to Recommendation on test readiness criteria for new approach methods in toxicology: exemplified for developmental neurotoxicity.

In this manuscript, which appeared in ALTEX 35 , 306-352 ( doi:10.14573/altex.1712081 ), the Acknowledgements should read: This work was supported by the Doerenkamp-Zbinden Foundation, EFSA, the BMBF, JPI-NutriCog-Selenius, and it has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 681002 (EU-ToxRisk).

Optimizing drug discovery by Investigative Toxicology: Current and future trends.

Investigative Toxicology describes the de-risking and mechanistic elucidation of toxicities, supporting early safety decisions in the pharmaceutical industry. Recently, Investigative Toxicology has contributed to a shift in pharmaceutical toxicology, from a descriptive to an evidence-based, mechanistic discipline. This was triggered by high costs and low throughput of Good Laboratory Practice in vivo studies, and increasing demands for adhering to the 3R (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) principles of animal welfare. Outside the boundaries of regulatory toxicology, Investigative Toxicology has the flexibility to embrace new technologies, enhancing translational steps from in silico, in vitro to in vivo mechanistic understanding to eventually predict human response. One major goal of Investigative Toxicology is improving preclinical decisions, which coincides with the concept of animal-free safety testing. Currently, compounds under preclinical development are being discarded due to the use of inappropriate animal models. Progress in Investigative Toxicology could lead to humanized in vitro test systems and the development of medicines less reliant on animal tests. To advance this field a group of 14 European-based leaders from the pharmaceutical industry founded the Investigative Toxicology Leaders Forum (ITLF), an open, non-exclusive and pre-competitive group that shares knowledge and experience. The ITLF collaborated with the Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing Europe (CAAT-Europe) to organize an "Investigative Toxicology Think-Tank", which aimed to enhance the interaction with experts from academia and regulatory bodies in the field. Summarizing the topics and discussion of the workshop, this article highlights Investigative Toxicology's position by identifying key challenges and perspectives.

Recommendation on test readiness criteria for new approach methods in toxicology: Exemplified for developmental neurotoxicity.

Multiple non-animal-based test methods have never been formally validated. In order to use such new approach methods (NAMs) in a regulatory context, criteria to define their readiness are necessary. The field of developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) testing is used to exemplify the application of readiness criteria. The costs and number of untested chemicals are overwhelming for in vivo DNT testing. Thus, there is a need for inexpensive, high-throughput NAMs, to obtain initial information on potential hazards, and to allow prioritization for further testing. A background on the regulatory and scientific status of DNT testing is provided showing different types of test readiness levels, depending on the intended use of data from NAMs. Readiness criteria, compiled during a stakeholder workshop, uniting scientists from academia, industry and regulatory authorities are presented. An important step beyond the listing of criteria, was the suggestion for a preliminary scoring scheme. On this basis a (semi)-quantitative analysis process was assembled on test readiness of 17 NAMs with respect to various uses (e.g. prioritization/screening, risk assessment). The scoring results suggest that several assays are currently at high readiness levels. Therefore, suggestions are made on how DNT NAMs may be assembled into an integrated approach to testing and assessment (IATA). In parallel, the testing state in these assays was compiled for more than 1000 compounds. Finally, a vision is presented on how further NAM development may be guided by knowledge of signaling pathways necessary for brain development, DNT pathophysiology, and relevant adverse outcome pathways (AOP).