Enabling novel paradigms: a biological questions-based approach to human chemical hazard and drug safety assessment.

Throughput needs, costs of time and resources, and concerns about the use of animals in hazard and safety assessment studies are fueling a growing interest in adopting new approach methodologies for use in product development and risk assessment. However, current efforts to define "next-generation risk assessment" vary considerably across commercial and regulatory sectors, and an a priori definition of the biological scope of data needed to assess hazards is generally lacking. We propose that the absence of clearly defined questions that can be answered during hazard assessment is the primary barrier to the generation of a paradigm flexible enough to be used across varying product development and approval decision contexts. Herein, we propose a biological questions-based approach (BQBA) for hazard and safety assessment to facilitate fit-for-purpose method selection and more efficient evidence-based decision-making. The key pillars of this novel approach are bioavailability, bioactivity, adversity, and susceptibility. This BQBA is compared with current hazard approaches and is applied in scenarios of varying pathobiological understanding and/or regulatory testing requirements. To further define the paradigm and key questions that allow better prediction and characterization of human health hazard, a multidisciplinary collaboration among stakeholder groups should be initiated.

Oral vancomycin is associated with improved inflammatory bowel disease clinical outcomes in primary sclerosing cholangitis-associated inflammatory bowel disease (PSC-IBD): A matched analysis from the Paediatric PSC Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Data on oral vancomycin for primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC)-associated inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are limited. AIMS: Using data from the Paediatric PSC Consortium, to examine the effect of vancomycin on IBD activity. METHODS: In this retrospective multi-centre cohort study, we matched vancomycin-treated and untreated patients (1:3) based on IBD duration at the time of primary outcome assessment. The primary outcome was Physician Global Assessment (PGA) of IBD clinical activity after 1 year (±6 months) of vancomycin. We used generalised estimating equations (GEE) to examine the association between vancomycin and PGA remission, adjusting for IBD type, severity and medication exposures. Secondary outcomes included serum labs and endoscopic remission (global rating of no activity) among those with available data and also analysed with GEE. RESULTS: 113 PSC-IBD patients received vancomycin (median age 12.7 years, 63% male). The matched cohort included 70 vancomycin-treated and 210 untreated patients. Vancomycin was associated with greater odds of IBD clinical remission (odds ratio [OR] 3.52, 95% CI 1.97-6.31; adjusted OR [aOR] 5.24, 95% CI 2.68-10.22). Benefit was maintained in sensitivity analyses restricted to non-transplanted patients and those with baseline moderate-severe PGA. Vancomycin was associated with increased odds of endoscopic remission (aOR 2.76, 95% CI 1.002-7.62; N = 101 with data), and with lower CRP (p = 0.03) and higher haemoglobin and albumin (both p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Vancomycin was associated with greater odds of IBD clinical and endoscopic remission. Additional, preferably randomised, controlled studies are needed to characterise efficacy using objective markers of mucosal inflammation, and to examine safety and define optimal dosing.