Mode of action Criteria for selection of the critical effect and safe dose range for PFOA by the Alliance for risk assessment

IF 3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, LEGAL Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Pub Date : 2024-11-13 DOI:10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105738
Harvey Clewell
{"title":"Mode of action Criteria for selection of the critical effect and safe dose range for PFOA by the Alliance for risk assessment","authors":"Harvey Clewell","doi":"10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105738","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In response to the current disparity in risk assessment values for PFOA from different agencies and countries, an international effort facilitated by the Alliance for Risk Assessment (<em>ARA</em>) was recently undertaken to characterize the range of scientifically supportable safe dose estimates. In this assessment (Burgoon et al., 2023), an evaluation of the evidence regarding the potential modes of action (MOA) for PFOA toxicity was performed first, so that it could be used to inform subsequent decisions regarding potential critical effects and studies. This review describes the evidence considered in the MOA evaluations that were performed as part of the ARA effort. The overall conclusions of this evaluation are that the available mechanistic data do not support any conclusion that reported epidemiological associations of blood concentrations of PFOA as low as 10 ng/mL with various health effects should be considered causal. It is more likely that the reported associations may instead reflect reverse causality/pharmacokinetic confounding. These conclusions are consistent with the opinions of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2022).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":20852,"journal":{"name":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","volume":"154 ","pages":"Article 105738"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027323002400179X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In response to the current disparity in risk assessment values for PFOA from different agencies and countries, an international effort facilitated by the Alliance for Risk Assessment (ARA) was recently undertaken to characterize the range of scientifically supportable safe dose estimates. In this assessment (Burgoon et al., 2023), an evaluation of the evidence regarding the potential modes of action (MOA) for PFOA toxicity was performed first, so that it could be used to inform subsequent decisions regarding potential critical effects and studies. This review describes the evidence considered in the MOA evaluations that were performed as part of the ARA effort. The overall conclusions of this evaluation are that the available mechanistic data do not support any conclusion that reported epidemiological associations of blood concentrations of PFOA as low as 10 ng/mL with various health effects should be considered causal. It is more likely that the reported associations may instead reflect reverse causality/pharmacokinetic confounding. These conclusions are consistent with the opinions of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2022).
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
风险评估联盟选择 PFOA 临界效应和安全剂量范围的作用模式标准。
针对目前不同机构和国家对全氟辛烷磺酸风险评估值的差异,风险评估联盟(ARA)最近推动了一项国际工作,以确定科学上可支持的安全剂量估算范围。在这项评估(Burgoon 等人,2023 年)中,首先对有关 PFOA 毒性的潜在作用模式 (MOA) 的证据进行了评估,以便为后续有关潜在关键效应和研究的决策提供信息。本综述介绍了作为 ARA 工作一部分的 MOA 评估所考虑的证据。本次评估的总体结论是,现有的机理数据并不支持任何结论,即所报告的血液中低至10纳克/毫升的全氟辛烷磺酸浓度与各种健康影响之间的流行病学关联应被视为因果关系。更有可能的情况是,报告的关联可能反映了反向因果关系/药代动力学混杂。这些结论与世界卫生组织(WHO 2022)的意见一致。
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
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
8.80%
发文量
147
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology publishes peer reviewed articles that involve the generation, evaluation, and interpretation of experimental animal and human data that are of direct importance and relevance for regulatory authorities with respect to toxicological and pharmacological regulations in society. All peer-reviewed articles that are published should be devoted to improve the protection of human health and environment. Reviews and discussions are welcomed that address legal and/or regulatory decisions with respect to risk assessment and management of toxicological and pharmacological compounds on a scientific basis. It addresses an international readership of scientists, risk assessors and managers, and other professionals active in the field of human and environmental health. Types of peer-reviewed articles published: -Original research articles of relevance for regulatory aspects covering aspects including, but not limited to: 1.Factors influencing human sensitivity 2.Exposure science related to risk assessment 3.Alternative toxicological test methods 4.Frameworks for evaluation and integration of data in regulatory evaluations 5.Harmonization across regulatory agencies 6.Read-across methods and evaluations -Contemporary Reviews on policy related Research issues -Letters to the Editor -Guest Editorials (by Invitation)
期刊最新文献
Considerations and derivations of permitted daily exposure limits for impurities from intravitreal pharmaceutical products. Carcinogenicity Assessment of Inotersen in Tg.rasH2 Mice and Sprague-Dawley Rats: Implications for 2'-MOE Antisense Oligonucleotides. Enhancing reliability of embryo-fetal developmental toxicity studies: A proposed design of replicate studies. Target organ toxicity in Sprague Dawley rats following oral exposure to complex groundwater mixture: Assessment of dose-response relationships using histopathological and biochemical alterations Minimizing the Risk of Ethylene Glycol and Diethylene Glycol Poisoning in Medications: A Regulatory and Pharmacopoeial Response.
×
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