A Systematic Analysis of Read-Across Adaptations in Testing Proposal Evaluations by the European Chemicals Agency

Hannah Roe, Han-Hsuan D Tsai, Nicholas Ball, Fred A Wright, Weihsueh Chiu, Ivan Rusyn
{"title":"A Systematic Analysis of Read-Across Adaptations in Testing Proposal Evaluations by the European Chemicals Agency","authors":"Hannah Roe, Han-Hsuan D Tsai, Nicholas Ball, Fred A Wright, Weihsueh Chiu, Ivan Rusyn","doi":"10.1101/2024.08.29.610278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An important element of the European Unions Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation is the evaluation by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of testing proposals submitted by the registrants to address data gaps in standard REACH information requirements. The registrants may propose adaptations, and ECHA evaluates the reasoning and issues a written decision. Read-across is a common adaptation type, yet it is widely assumed that ECHA often does not agree that the justifications are adequate to waive standard testing requirements. From 2008 to August 2023, a total of 2,630 Testing Proposals were submitted to ECHA; of these, 1,538 had published decisions that were systematically evaluated in this study. Each document was manually reviewed, and information extracted for further analyses. Read-across hypotheses were standardized into 17 assessment elements (AEs); each submission was classified as to the AEs relied upon by the registrants and by ECHA. Data was analyzed for patterns and associations. Testing Proposal Evaluations (TPEs) with adaptations comprised 23% (353) of the total; analogue (168) or group (136) read-across adaptations were most common. Of 304 read-across-containing TPEs, 49% were accepted; the odds of acceptance were significantly greater for group read-across submissions. The data was analyzed by Annex (i.e., tonnage), test guideline study, read-across hypothesis AEs, as well as target and source substance types and their structural similarity. While most ECHA decisions with both positive and negative decisions on whether the proposed read-across was adequate were context-specific, a number of significant associations were identified that influence the odds of acceptance. Overall, this analysis provides an unbiased overview of 15 years of experience with testing proposal-specific read-across adaptations by both registrants and ECHA. These data will inform future submissions as they identify most critical AEs to increase the odds of read-across acceptance.","PeriodicalId":501518,"journal":{"name":"bioRxiv - Pharmacology and Toxicology","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"bioRxiv - Pharmacology and Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.29.610278","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

An important element of the European Unions Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation is the evaluation by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of testing proposals submitted by the registrants to address data gaps in standard REACH information requirements. The registrants may propose adaptations, and ECHA evaluates the reasoning and issues a written decision. Read-across is a common adaptation type, yet it is widely assumed that ECHA often does not agree that the justifications are adequate to waive standard testing requirements. From 2008 to August 2023, a total of 2,630 Testing Proposals were submitted to ECHA; of these, 1,538 had published decisions that were systematically evaluated in this study. Each document was manually reviewed, and information extracted for further analyses. Read-across hypotheses were standardized into 17 assessment elements (AEs); each submission was classified as to the AEs relied upon by the registrants and by ECHA. Data was analyzed for patterns and associations. Testing Proposal Evaluations (TPEs) with adaptations comprised 23% (353) of the total; analogue (168) or group (136) read-across adaptations were most common. Of 304 read-across-containing TPEs, 49% were accepted; the odds of acceptance were significantly greater for group read-across submissions. The data was analyzed by Annex (i.e., tonnage), test guideline study, read-across hypothesis AEs, as well as target and source substance types and their structural similarity. While most ECHA decisions with both positive and negative decisions on whether the proposed read-across was adequate were context-specific, a number of significant associations were identified that influence the odds of acceptance. Overall, this analysis provides an unbiased overview of 15 years of experience with testing proposal-specific read-across adaptations by both registrants and ECHA. These data will inform future submissions as they identify most critical AEs to increase the odds of read-across acceptance.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
系统分析欧洲化学品管理局测试建议评估中的读取-交叉适应性
欧盟《化学品注册、评估、许可和限制》(REACH)法规的一项重要内容是由欧洲化学品管理局(ECHA)对注册人提交的测试建议进行评估,以解决 REACH 标准信息要求中的数据缺口。注册人可提出调整建议,欧洲化学品管理局会对理由进行评估,并发布书面决定。读过是一种常见的适应类型,但人们普遍认为,欧洲化学品管理局往往不同意这些理由足以免除标准测试要求。从 2008 年到 2023 年 8 月,共向欧洲化学品管理局提交了 2,630 份测试提案;其中 1,538 份已发布决定,本研究对其进行了系统评估。每份文件都经过人工审核,并提取信息进行进一步分析。交叉阅读假设被标准化为 17 个评估要素 (AE);每份提交的文件都根据注册人和 ECHA 所依赖的 AE 进行了分类。对数据进行了模式和关联分析。有改编的测试建议评估(TPE)占总数的 23%(353 项);最常见的是模拟改编(168 项)或分组改编(136 项)。在 304 份含有改编的 TPE 中,49% 的 TPE 被接受;小组改编的 TPE 被接受的几率明显更大。数据按附件(即吨位)、测试准则研究、读取交叉假设 AE 以及目标物质和源物质类型及其结构相似性进行了分析。虽然欧洲化学品管理局的大多数决定都是针对具体情况做出的,其中既有肯定的决定,也有否定的决定,以确定拟议的 "解读-交叉 "是否充分,但也发现了一些影响接受几率的重要关联。总之,这项分析对注册人和欧洲化学品管理局 15 年来在测试特定提案的读取对照适应性方面的经验进行了公正的概述。这些数据将为今后提交的申请提供参考,因为它们可以确定最关键的预期效果,从而提高接受可读性的几率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Quinoline synergy and reduced use: a study of pharmacodynamic interactions In vitro and in vivo evaluation of Ulva lactuca for wound healing In Vitro Evaluation of Anti-Inflammatory, Anti-Plaque Efficacy, and Biocompatibility of Norway Spruce (Picea abies) Resin Extract for Oral Care Applications Daphnids Can Safeguard the Use of Alternative Bioassays to the Acute Fish Toxicity Test: A Focus on Neurotoxicity Qing-Luo-Yin-induced SIRT1 inhibition contributes to the immune improvement of adjuvant-induced arthritis rats
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1