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.

Development of an Evidence-Based Risk Assessment Framework.

Assessment of potential human health risks associated with environmental and other agents requires careful evaluation of all available and relevant evidence for the agent of interest, including both data-rich and data-poor agents. With the advent of new approach methodologies in toxicological risk assessment, guidance on integrating evidence from mul-tiple evidence streams is needed to ensure that all available data is given due consideration in both qualitative and quantitative risk assessment. The present report summarizes the discussions among academic, government, and private sector participants from North America and Europe in an international workshop convened to explore the development of an evidence-based risk assessment framework, taking into account all available evidence in an appropriate manner in order to arrive at the best possible characterization of potential human health risks and associated uncertainty. Although consensus among workshop participants was not a specific goal, there was general agreement on the key consider-ations involved in evidence-based risk assessment incorporating 21st century science into human health risk assessment. These considerations have been embodied into an overarching prototype framework for evidence integration that will be explored in more depth in a follow-up meeting.

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.

Accelerating the Pace of Chemical Risk Assessment.

Changes in chemical regulations worldwide have increased the demand for new data on chemical safety. New approach methodologies (NAMs) are defined broadly here as including in silico approaches and in chemico and in vitro assays, as well as the inclusion of information from the exposure of chemicals in the context of hazard [European Chemicals Agency, " New Approach Methodologies in Regulatory Science ", 2016]. NAMs for toxicity testing, including alternatives to animal testing approaches, have shown promise to provide a large amount of data to fill information gaps in both hazard and exposure. In order to increase experience with the new data and to advance the applications of NAM data to evaluate the safety of data-poor chemicals, demonstration case studies have to be developed to build confidence in their usability. Case studies can be used to explore the domains of applicability of the NAM data and identify areas that would benefit from further research, development, and application. To ensure that this science evolves with direct input from and engagement by risk managers and regulatory decision makers, a workshop was convened among senior leaders from international regulatory agencies to identify common barriers for using NAMs and to propose next steps to address them. Central to the workshop were a series of collaborative case studies designed to explore areas where the benefits of NAM data could be demonstrated. These included use of in vitro bioassays data in combination with exposure estimates to derive a quantitative assessment of risk, use of NAMs for updating chemical categorizations, and use of NAMs to increase understanding of exposure and human health toxicity of various chemicals. The case study approach proved effective in building collaborations and engagement with regulatory decision makers and to promote the importance of data and knowledge sharing among international regulatory agencies. The case studies will be continued to explore new ways of describing hazard (i.e., pathway perturbations as a measure of adversity) and new ways of describing risk (i.e., using NAMs to identify protective levels without necessarily being predictive of a specific hazard). Importantly, the case studies also highlighted the need for increased training and communication across the various communities including the risk assessors, regulators, stakeholders (e.g., industry, non-governmental organizations), and the general public. The development and application of NAMs will play an increasing role in filling important data gaps on the safety of chemicals, but confidence in NAMs will only come with learning by doing and sharing in the experience.

Chemical Risk Assessment: Traditional vs Public Health Perspectives.

Preventing adverse health effects of environmental chemical exposure is fundamental to protecting individual and public health. When done efficiently and properly, chemical risk assessment enables risk management actions that minimize the incidence and effects of environmentally induced diseases related to chemical exposure. However, traditional chemical risk assessment is faced with multiple challenges with respect to predicting and preventing disease in human populations, and epidemiological studies increasingly report observations of adverse health effects at exposure levels predicted from animal studies to be safe for humans. This discordance reinforces concerns about the adequacy of contemporary risk assessment practices for protecting public health. It is becoming clear that to protect public health more effectively, future risk assessments will need to use the full range of available data, draw on innovative methods to integrate diverse data streams, and consider health endpoints that also reflect the range of subtle effects and morbidities observed in human populations. Considering these factors, there is a need to reframe chemical risk assessment to be more clearly aligned with the public health goal of minimizing environmental exposures associated with disease.

Comprehensive environmental assessment: a meta-assessment approach.

With growing calls for changes in the field of risk assessment, improved systematic approaches for addressing environmental issues with greater transparency and stakeholder engagement are needed to ensure sustainable trade-offs. Here we describe the comprehensive environmental assessment (CEA) approach as a holistic way to manage complex information and to structure input from diverse stakeholder perspectives to support environmental decision-making for the near- and long-term. We further note how CEA builds upon and incorporates other available tools and approaches, describe its current application at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and point out how it could be extended in evaluating a major issue such as the sustainability of biofuels.

Meeting report: Estimating the benefits of reducing hazardous air pollutants--summary of 2009 workshop and future considerations.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying the benefits of reducing hazardous air pollutants (HAPs, or air toxics) has been limited by gaps in toxicological data, uncertainties in extrapolating results from high-dose animal experiments to estimate human effects at lower doses, limited ambient and personal exposure monitoring data, and insufficient economic research to support valuation of the health impacts often associated with exposure to individual air toxics. OBJECTIVES: To address some of these issues, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency held the Workshop on Estimating the Benefits of Reducing Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) in Washington, DC, from 30 April to 1 May 2009. DISCUSSION: Experts from multiple disciplines discussed how best to move forward on air toxics benefits assessment, with a focus on developing near-term capability to conduct quantitative benefits assessment. Proposed methodologies involved analysis of data-rich pollutants and application of this analysis to other pollutants, using dose-response modeling of animal data for estimating benefits to humans, determining dose-equivalence relationships for different chemicals with similar health effects, and analysis similar to that used for criteria pollutants. Limitations and uncertainties in economic valuation of benefits assessment for HAPS were discussed as well. CONCLUSIONS: These discussions highlighted the complexities in estimating the benefits of reducing air toxics, and participants agreed that alternative methods for benefits assessment of HAPs are needed. Recommendations included clearly defining the key priorities of the Clean Air Act air toxics program to identify the most effective approaches for HAPs benefits analysis, focusing on susceptible and vulnerable populations, and improving dose-response estimation for quantification of benefits.

Risk management of nanomaterials.

Nanotechnology has become the focus of a large amount of scientific, political, and financial interest. Limited information on the exposure to nanomaterials is available, with only a few occupational exposure studies having been performed. While laboratory animal studies on the biological effects of some nanomaterials have been published, no epidemiological studies have been reported to date. This lack of data on exposure and human health effects hinders risk assessment of these materials. As the use of nanomaterials increases rapidly, it is of vital importance that the risk assessment community understands the complexities of the issues surrounding the manufacture, use and disposal of nanomaterials, the potential of environmental and occupational exposure to human populations, as well as adverse health outcomes. For this to happen, it is in many ways necessary for the scientific community to also understand what questions risk assessors need to ask, and what research will best answer them. Risk management of nanomaterials requires more information as to the human and ecological effects of exposure to various nanomaterials. At this time, there are no specific regulations for nanomaterials, but a few efforts to include nanomaterials under existing environmental regulations have begun. The purpose of this article is to describe the potential regulations for nanomaterials, and the current issues related to the risk assessment of nanomaterials.