A primer on systematic reviews in toxicology.

Systematic reviews, pioneered in the clinical field, provide a transparent, methodologically rigorous and reproducible means of summarizing the available evidence on a precisely framed research question. Having matured to a well-established approach in many research fields, systematic reviews are receiving increasing attention as a potential tool for answering toxicological questions. In the larger framework of evidence-based toxicology, the advantages and obstacles of, as well as the approaches for, adapting and adopting systematic reviews to toxicology are still being explored. To provide the toxicology community with a starting point for conducting or understanding systematic reviews, we herein summarized available guidance documents from various fields of application. We have elaborated on the systematic review process by breaking it down into ten steps, starting with planning the project, framing the question, and writing and publishing the protocol, and concluding with interpretation and reporting. In addition, we have identified the specific methodological challenges of toxicological questions and have summarized how these can be addressed. Ultimately, this primer is intended to stimulate scientific discussions of the identified issues to fuel the development of toxicology-specific methodology and to encourage the application of systematic review methodology to toxicological issues.

FutureTox III: Bridges for Translation.

Future Tox III, a Society of Toxicology Contemporary Concepts in Toxicology workshop, was held in November 2015. Building upon Future Tox I and II, Future Tox III was focused on developing the high throughput risk assessment paradigm and taking the science of in vitro data and in silico models forward to explore the question-what progress is being made to address challenges in implementing the emerging big-data toolbox for risk assessment and regulatory decision-making. This article reports on the outcome of the workshop including 2 examples of where advancements in predictive toxicology approaches are being applied within Federal agencies, where opportunities remain within the exposome and AOP domains, and how collectively the toxicology community across multiple sectors can continue to bridge the translation from historical approaches to Tox21 implementation relative to risk assessment and regulatory decision-making.

Bayesian methods for uncertainty factor application for derivation of reference values.

In 2014, the National Research Council (NRC) published Review of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Process that considers methods EPA uses for developing toxicity criteria for non-carcinogens. These criteria are the Reference Dose (RfD) for oral exposure and Reference Concentration (RfC) for inhalation exposure. The NRC Review suggested using Bayesian methods for application of uncertainty factors (UFs) to adjust the point of departure dose or concentration to a level considered to be without adverse effects for the human population. The NRC foresaw Bayesian methods would be potentially useful for combining toxicity data from disparate sources-high throughput assays, animal testing, and observational epidemiology. UFs represent five distinct areas for which both adjustment and consideration of uncertainty may be needed. NRC suggested UFs could be represented as Bayesian prior distributions, illustrated the use of a log-normal distribution to represent the composite UF, and combined this distribution with a log-normal distribution representing uncertainty in the point of departure (POD) to reflect the overall uncertainty. Here, we explore these suggestions and present a refinement of the methodology suggested by NRC that considers each individual UF as a distribution. From an examination of 24 evaluations from EPA's IRIS program, when individual UFs were represented using this approach, the geometric mean fold change in the value of the RfD or RfC increased from 3 to over 30, depending on the number of individual UFs used and the sophistication of the assessment. We present example calculations and recommendations for implementing the refined NRC methodology.

The Emergence of Systematic Review in Toxicology.

The Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration hosted a workshop on "The Emergence of Systematic Review and Related Evidence-based Approaches in Toxicology," on November 21, 2014 in Baltimore, Maryland. The workshop featured speakers from agencies and organizations applying systematic review approaches to questions in toxicology, speakers with experience in conducting systematic reviews in medicine and healthcare, and stakeholders in industry, government, academia, and non-governmental organizations. Based on the workshop presentations and discussion, here we address the state of systematic review methods in toxicology, historical antecedents in both medicine and toxicology, challenges to the translation of systematic review from medicine to toxicology, and thoughts on the way forward. We conclude with a recommendation that as various agencies and organizations adapt systematic review methods, they continue to work together to ensure that there is a harmonized process for how the basic elements of systematic review methods are applied in toxicology.

Approaches for describing and communicating overall uncertainty in toxicity characterizations: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) as a case study.

Single point estimates of human health hazard/toxicity values such as a reference dose (RfD) are generally used in chemical hazard and risk assessment programs for assessing potential risks associated with site- or use-specific exposures. The resulting point estimates are often used by risk managers for regulatory decision-making, including standard setting, determination of emission controls, and mitigation of exposures to chemical substances. Risk managers, as well as stakeholders (interested and affected parties), often have limited information regarding assumptions and uncertainty factors in numerical estimates of both hazards and risks. Further, the use of different approaches for addressing uncertainty, which vary in transparency, can lead to a lack of confidence in the scientific underpinning of regulatory decision-making. The overarching goal of this paper, which was developed from an invited participant workshop, is to offer five approaches for presenting toxicity values in a transparent manner in order to improve the understanding, consideration, and informed use of uncertainty by risk assessors, risk managers, and stakeholders. The five approaches for improving the presentation and communication of uncertainty are described using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) as a case study. These approaches will ensure transparency in the documentation, development, and use of toxicity values at EPA, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and other similar assessment programs in the public and private sector. Further empirical testing will help to inform the approaches that will work best for specific audiences and situations.

A survey of frameworks for best practices in weight-of-evidence analyses.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Review of the Environmental Protection Agency's Draft IRIS Assessment of Formaldehyde proposed a "roadmap" for reform and improvement of the Agency's risk assessment process. Specifically, it called for development of a transparent and defensible methodology for weight-of-evidence (WoE) assessments. To facilitate development of an improved process, we developed a white paper that reviewed approximately 50 existing WoE frameworks, seeking insights from their variations and nominating best practices for WoE analyses of causation of chemical risks. Four phases of WoE analysis were identified and evaluated in each framework: (1) defining the causal question and developing criteria for study selection, (2) developing and applying criteria for review of individual studies, (3) evaluating and integrating evidence and (4) drawing conclusions based on inferences. We circulated the draft white paper to stakeholders and then held a facilitated, multi-disciplinary invited stakeholder workshop to broaden and deepen the discussion on methods, rationales, utility and limitations among the surveyed WoE frameworks. The workshop developed recommendations for improving the conduct of WoE evaluations. Based on the analysis of the 50 frameworks and discussions at the workshop, best practices in conducting WoE analyses were identified for each of the four phases. Many of these best practices noted from the analysis and workshop could be implemented immediately, while others may require additional refinement as part of the ongoing discussions for improving the scientific basis of chemical risk assessments.

Federal seafood safety response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, petroleum-related compounds and chemical dispersants were detected in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. As a result, there was concern about the risk to human health through consumption of contaminated seafood in the region. Federal and Gulf Coast State agencies worked together on a sampling plan and analytical protocols to determine whether seafood was safe to eat and acceptable for sale in the marketplace. Sensory and chemical methods were used to measure polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dispersant in >8,000 seafood specimens collected in federal waters of the Gulf. Overall, individual PAHs and the dispersant component dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate were found in low concentrations or below the limits of quantitation. When detected, the concentrations were at least two orders of magnitude lower than the level of concern for human health risk. Once an area closed to fishing was free of visibly floating oil and all sensory and chemical results for the seafood species within an area met the criteria for reopening, that area was eligible to be reopened. On April 19, 2011 the area around the wellhead was the last area in federal waters to be reopened nearly 1 y after the spill began. However, as of November 9, 2011, some state waters off the Louisiana coast (Barataria Bay and the Delta region) remain closed to fishing.