Is read-across for chemicals comparable to medical device equivalence and where to use it for conformity assessment?

Novel medical devices must conform to medical device regulation (MDR) for European market entry. Likewise, chemicals must comply with the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACh) regulation. Both pose regulatory challenges for manufacturers, but concordantly provide an approach for transferring data from an already registered device or compound to the one undergoing accreditation. This is called equivalence for medical devices and read-across for chemicals. Although read-across is not explicitly prohibited in the process of medical device accreditation, it is usually not performed due to a lack of guidance and acceptance criteria from the authorities. Nonetheless, a scientifically justified read-across of material-based endpoints, as well as toxicological assessment of chemical aspects, such as extractables and leachables, can prevent failure of MDR device equivalence if data is lacking. Further, read-across, if applied correctly can facilitate the standard MDR conformity assessment. The need for read-across within medical device registration should let authorities to reconsider device accreditation and the formulation of respective guidance documents. Acceptance criteria like in the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) read-across assessment framework (RAAF) are needed. This can reduce the impact of the MDR and help with keeping high European innovation device rate, beneficial for medical device patients.

25th anniversary of the Berlin workshop on developmental toxicology: DevTox database update, challenges in risk assessment of developmental neurotoxicity and alternative methodologies in bone development and growth.

25 years after the first Berlin Workshop on Developmental Toxicity this 10th Berlin Workshop aimed to bring together international experts from authorities, academia and industry to consider scientific, methodologic and regulatory aspects in risk assessment of developmental toxicity and to debate alternative strategies in testing developmental effects in the future. Proposals for improvement of the categorization of developmental effects were discussed as well as the update of the DevTox database as valuable tool for harmonization. The development of adverse outcome pathways relevant to developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) was debated as a fundamental improvement to guide the screening and testing for DNT using alternatives to animal methods. A further focus was the implementation of an in vitro mechanism-based battery, which can support various regulatory applications associated with the assessment of chemicals and mixtures. More interdisciplinary and translation research should be initiated to accelerate the development of new technologies to test developmental toxicity. Technologies in the pipeline are (i) high throughput imaging techniques, (ii) models for DNT screening tests, (iii) use of computer tomography for assessment of thoracolumbar supernumerary ribs in animal models, and (iv) 3D biofabrication of bone development and regeneration tissue models. In addition, increased collaboration with the medical community was suggested to improve the relevance of test results to humans and identify more clinically relevant endpoints. Finally, the participants agreed that this conference facilitated better understanding innovative approaches that can be useful for the identification of developmental health risks due to exposure to chemical substances.

Update of the DevTox data database for harmonized risk assessment and alternative methodologies in developmental toxicology: Report of the 9th Berlin Workshop on Developmental Toxicity.

Representatives of applied science (e.g. governmental organizations, academia, and industry) met to discuss the progress towards a harmonized human health risk assessment in developmental toxicology of plant protection products, biocidal products, and other environmental chemicals at the 9th Berlin Workshop on Developmental Toxicity held in September 2018. Within the focus of the scientific discussion were the future of in-vitro methods for developmental and reproductive toxicology, the potential relevance of alternative species in testing of developmental effects, and risk and hazard assessment of developmental and endocrine effects. Furthermore, the need for a harmonized terminology for classification of anomalies in laboratory animals in developmental toxicity studies aiming for human health risk assessment was determined. Here, the DevTox database was identified as an extremely valuable tool. Overall, the participants agreed that still one of the biggest challenges for testing developmental toxicity in the 21st century is the development of animal-free test strategies and alternatives to animal testing that could provide human-relevant information in a rapid, efficient, and mechanistically informative manner.

Best Practice Approach for Assessment of Microchip-associated Tumors in Preclinical Safety Studies: Position of the Registry of Industrial Toxicology Animal-data (RITA).

Microchip (passive radio-frequency identification device) implantation is a common and widely employed means of animal identification in laboratory animal facilities. However, these devices have been associated with tumors of the skin and subcutis in rodents. While microchip-associated tumors are rare, they pose a challenge for accurate diagnosis and documentation in preclinical toxicity studies. Documentation of these tumors should differentiate microchip-associated lesions with spontaneously occurring or test article-induced tumors. Standardizing criteria for microchip-associated lesions will aid the diagnostic process and allow for preclinical regulatory standardization. To this end, the Registry of Industrial Toxicology Animal-data have developed clear recommendations for diagnosis and documentation of microchip-associated lesions.