Data derived extrapolation factors (DDEFs) for rat to human interspecies extrapolation for the HPPD inhibitor mesotrione.

In the risk assessment of agrochemicals, there has been a historical paucity of using data to refine the default adjustment factors, even though large datasets are available to support this. The current state of the science for addressing uncertainty regarding animal to human extrapolation (AFA) is to develop a "data-derived" adjustment factor (DDEF) to quantify such differences, if data are available. Toxicokinetic (TK) and toxicodynamic (TD) differences between species can be utilized for the DDEF, with human datasets being ideal yet rare. We identified a case for a currently registered herbicide, mesotrione, in which human TK and TD are available. This case study outlines an approach for the development of DDEFs using comparative human and animal data and based on an adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for inhibition of 4-hydroxyphenol pyruvate dioxygenase (HHPD). The calculated DDEF for rat to human extrapolation (AFA) for kinetics (AFAK = 2.5) was multiplied by the AFA for dynamics (AFAD = 0.3) resulting in a composite DDEF of ∼1 (AFA = 0.75). This reflects the AOP and available scientific evidence that humans are less sensitive than rats to the effects of HPPD inhibitors. Further analyses were conducted utilizing in vitro datasets from hepatocytes and liver cytosols and extrapolated to whole animal using in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) to support toxicodynamic extrapolation. The in vitro datasets resulted in the same AFAD as derived for in vivo data (AFAD = 0.3). These analyses demonstrate that a majority of the species differences are related to toxicodynamics. Future work with additional in vitro/in vivo datasets for other HPPD inhibitors and cell types will further support this result. This work demonstrates utilization of all available toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic data to replace default uncertainty factors for agrochemical human health risk assessment.

Recommendations for harmonization of data collection and analysis of developmental neurotoxicity endpoints in regulatory guideline studies: Proceedings of workshops presented at Society of Toxicology and joint Teratology Society and Neurobehavioral Teratology Society meetings.

The potential for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) of environmental chemicals may be evaluated using specific test guidelines from the US Environmental Protection Agency or the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). These guidelines generate neurobehavioral, neuropathological, and morphometric data that are evaluated by regulatory agencies globally. Data from these DNT guideline studies, or the more recent OECD extended one-generation reproductive toxicity guideline, play a pivotal role in children's health risk assessment in different world areas. Data from the same study may be interpreted differently by regulatory authorities in different countries resulting in inconsistent evaluations that may lead to inconsistencies in risk assessment decisions internationally, resulting in regional differences in public health protection or in commercial trade barriers. These issues of data interpretation and reporting are also relevant to juvenile and pre-postnatal studies conducted more routinely for pharmaceuticals and veterinary medicines. There is a need for development of recommendations geared toward the operational needs of the regulatory scientific reviewers who apply these studies in risk assessments, as well as the scientists who generate DNT data sets. The workshops summarized here draw upon the experience of the authors representing government, industry, contract research organizations, and academia to discuss the scientific issues that have emerged from diverse regulatory evaluations. Although various regulatory bodies have different risk management decisions and labeling requirements that are difficult to harmonize, the workshops provided an opportunity to work toward more harmonized scientific approaches for evaluating DNT data within the context of different regulatory frameworks. Five speakers and their coauthors with neurotoxicology, neuropathology, and regulatory toxicology expertise discussed issues of variability, data reporting and analysis, and expectations in DNT data that are encountered by regulatory authorities. In addition, principles for harmonized evaluation of data were suggested using guideline DNT data as case studies.