Pub Date : 2024-07-01Epub Date: 2024-07-09DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2024.2349668
Robyn L Prueitt, Nicholas L Drury, Ross A Shore, Denali N Boon, Julie E Goodman
The potential carcinogenicity of talc has been evaluated in many studies in humans and experimental animals published in the scientific literature over the last several decades, with a number of these studies reporting no associations between talc exposure and any type of cancer. In order to fully understand the current state of the science regarding the potential for talc to induce human cancers, we conducted a comprehensive and systematic review of the available experimental animal and mechanistic evidence (in conjunction with a systematic review of the epidemiology evidence in a companion analysis) to evaluate whether it supports talc as being carcinogenic to humans. We considered study quality and its impact on the interpretation of results and evaluated all types of cancer and all exposure routes. We also evaluated the evidence on the potential for talc to migrate in the body to potential tumor sites. We identified seven experimental animal carcinogenicity studies and 11 mechanistic studies of talc to systematically review. We found that several of the experimental animal carcinogenicity studies of talc have limitations that preclude their sensitivity to detect increases in tumor incidence. Regardless, the studies cover multiple exposure routes, species, and exposure durations, and none indicate that talc is a carcinogen in experimental animals except in rats under conditions of extremely high exposure that likely resulted in lung particle overload, a nonspecific effect of high exposures to poorly soluble particles, and not from any carcinogenic properties of talc. Lung particle overload leading to lung tumor formation has only been observed in rats and not in any other species, including humans. The mechanistic studies indicate that talc is not genotoxic or mutagenic, but can induce some effects that could be events on a possible pathway to carcinogenicity, mainly at high exposures or in in vitro studies with exposures of unclear relevance in vivo, but these effects are not consistent across studies and cell types. This systematic review of the experimental animal carcinogenicity and mechanistic evidence for talc indicates that an association between talc exposure and cancer is not expected in humans. Talc carcinogenicity is not plausible in any species except rats, and only when the exposure conditions are high enough to induce lung particle overload, which is not relevant to human exposures.
{"title":"Talc and human cancer: a systematic review of the experimental animal and mechanistic evidence.","authors":"Robyn L Prueitt, Nicholas L Drury, Ross A Shore, Denali N Boon, Julie E Goodman","doi":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2349668","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2349668","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The potential carcinogenicity of talc has been evaluated in many studies in humans and experimental animals published in the scientific literature over the last several decades, with a number of these studies reporting no associations between talc exposure and any type of cancer. In order to fully understand the current state of the science regarding the potential for talc to induce human cancers, we conducted a comprehensive and systematic review of the available experimental animal and mechanistic evidence (in conjunction with a systematic review of the epidemiology evidence in a companion analysis) to evaluate whether it supports talc as being carcinogenic to humans. We considered study quality and its impact on the interpretation of results and evaluated all types of cancer and all exposure routes. We also evaluated the evidence on the potential for talc to migrate in the body to potential tumor sites. We identified seven experimental animal carcinogenicity studies and 11 mechanistic studies of talc to systematically review. We found that several of the experimental animal carcinogenicity studies of talc have limitations that preclude their sensitivity to detect increases in tumor incidence. Regardless, the studies cover multiple exposure routes, species, and exposure durations, and none indicate that talc is a carcinogen in experimental animals except in rats under conditions of extremely high exposure that likely resulted in lung particle overload, a nonspecific effect of high exposures to poorly soluble particles, and not from any carcinogenic properties of talc. Lung particle overload leading to lung tumor formation has only been observed in rats and not in any other species, including humans. The mechanistic studies indicate that talc is not genotoxic or mutagenic, but can induce some effects that could be events on a possible pathway to carcinogenicity, mainly at high exposures or in <i>in vitro</i> studies with exposures of unclear relevance <i>in vivo</i>, but these effects are not consistent across studies and cell types. This systematic review of the experimental animal carcinogenicity and mechanistic evidence for talc indicates that an association between talc exposure and cancer is not expected in humans. Talc carcinogenicity is not plausible in any species except rats, and only when the exposure conditions are high enough to induce lung particle overload, which is not relevant to human exposures.</p>","PeriodicalId":10869,"journal":{"name":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":"359-393"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141558334","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-01Epub Date: 2024-06-11DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2024.2348169
Gabriella Pacheco, André Luis Fernandes Lopes, Ana Patrícia de Oliveira, Wendson de Ribamar Machado Corrêa, Lucas Daniel Batista Lima, Marcellus Henrique Loiola Ponte de Souza, Ariel Soares Teles, Lucas Antonio Duarte Nicolau, Jand Venes Rolim Medeiros
During the COVID-19 pandemic, several drugs were repositioned and combined to quickly find a way to mitigate the effects of the infection. However, the adverse effects of these combinations on the gastrointestinal tract are unknown. We aimed investigate whether Hydroxychloroquine (HD), Azithromycin (AZ), and Ivermectin (IV) used in combination for the treatment of COVID-19, can lead to the development of gastrointestinal disorders. This is a systematic review and network meta-analysis conducted using Stata and Revman software, respectively. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023372802). A search of clinical trials in Cochrane Library databases, Embase, Web of Science, Lilacs, PubMed, Scopus and Clinicaltrials.gov conducted on November 26, 2023. The eligibility of the studies was assessed based on PICO criteria, including trials that compared different treatments and control group. The analysis of the quality of the evidence was carried out according to the GRADE. Six trials involving 1,686 COVID-19 patients were included. No trials on the association of HD or AZ with IV met the inclusion criteria, only studies on the association between HD and AZ were included. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain and increased transaminases were related. The symptoms of vomiting and nausea were evaluated through a network meta-analysis, while the symptom of abdominal pain was evaluated through a meta-analysis. No significant associations with these symptoms were observed for HD, AZ, or their combination, compared to control. Low heterogeneity and absence of inconsistency in indirect and direct comparisons were noted. Limitations included small sample sizes, varied drug dosages, and potential publication bias during the pandemic peak. This review unveils that there are no associations between gastrointestinal adverse effects and the combined treatment of HD with AZ in the management of COVID-19, as compared to either the use of a control group or the administration of the drugs individually, on the other hand, highlighting the very low or low certainty of evidence for the evaluated outcomes. To accurately conclude the absence of side effects, further high-quality randomized studies are needed.
在 COVID-19 大流行期间,对几种药物进行了重新定位和组合,以迅速找到减轻感染影响的方法。然而,这些联合用药对胃肠道的不良影响尚不清楚。我们旨在研究羟氯喹(HD)、阿奇霉素(AZ)和伊维菌素(IV)联合用于治疗 COVID-19 是否会导致胃肠道疾病的发生。这是一项分别使用 Stata 和 Revman 软件进行的系统综述和网络荟萃分析。研究方案已在 PROSPERO(CRD42023372802)注册。2023 年 11 月 26 日,在 Cochrane Library 数据库、Embase、Web of Science、Lilacs、PubMed、Scopus 和 Clinicaltrials.gov 中对临床试验进行了检索。根据 PICO 标准评估了研究的资格,包括比较不同治疗方法和对照组的试验。根据 GRADE 对证据质量进行了分析。共纳入六项试验,涉及 1,686 名 COVID-19 患者。没有关于 HD 或 AZ 与 IV 相关性的试验符合纳入标准,仅纳入了关于 HD 与 AZ 相关性的研究。恶心、呕吐、腹泻、腹痛和转氨酶升高与此有关。呕吐和恶心症状通过网络荟萃分析进行评估,腹痛症状则通过荟萃分析进行评估。与对照组相比,HD、AZ 或其组合与这些症状无明显关联。间接和直接比较的异质性较低,且无不一致性。局限性包括样本量小、药物剂量不同以及在大流行高峰期可能出现的发表偏差。本综述揭示,在治疗 COVID-19 的过程中,与使用对照组或单独用药相比,胃肠道不良反应与 HD 和 AZ 联合治疗之间不存在关联,这突出表明评估结果的证据确定性很低或很低。要准确得出无副作用的结论,还需要进一步开展高质量的随机研究。
{"title":"Comprehensive analysis of gastrointestinal side effects in COVID-19 patients undergoing combined pharmacological treatment with azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Gabriella Pacheco, André Luis Fernandes Lopes, Ana Patrícia de Oliveira, Wendson de Ribamar Machado Corrêa, Lucas Daniel Batista Lima, Marcellus Henrique Loiola Ponte de Souza, Ariel Soares Teles, Lucas Antonio Duarte Nicolau, Jand Venes Rolim Medeiros","doi":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2348169","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2348169","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>During the COVID-19 pandemic, several drugs were repositioned and combined to quickly find a way to mitigate the effects of the infection. However, the adverse effects of these combinations on the gastrointestinal tract are unknown. We aimed investigate whether Hydroxychloroquine (HD), Azithromycin (AZ), and Ivermectin (IV) used in combination for the treatment of COVID-19, can lead to the development of gastrointestinal disorders. This is a systematic review and network meta-analysis conducted using Stata and Revman software, respectively. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023372802). A search of clinical trials in Cochrane Library databases, Embase, Web of Science, Lilacs, PubMed, Scopus and Clinicaltrials.gov conducted on November 26, 2023. The eligibility of the studies was assessed based on PICO criteria, including trials that compared different treatments and control group. The analysis of the quality of the evidence was carried out according to the GRADE. Six trials involving 1,686 COVID-19 patients were included. No trials on the association of HD or AZ with IV met the inclusion criteria, only studies on the association between HD and AZ were included. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain and increased transaminases were related. The symptoms of vomiting and nausea were evaluated through a network meta-analysis, while the symptom of abdominal pain was evaluated through a meta-analysis. No significant associations with these symptoms were observed for HD, AZ, or their combination, compared to control. Low heterogeneity and absence of inconsistency in indirect and direct comparisons were noted. Limitations included small sample sizes, varied drug dosages, and potential publication bias during the pandemic peak. This review unveils that there are no associations between gastrointestinal adverse effects and the combined treatment of HD with AZ in the management of COVID-19, as compared to either the use of a control group or the administration of the drugs individually, on the other hand, highlighting the very low or low certainty of evidence for the evaluated outcomes. To accurately conclude the absence of side effects, further high-quality randomized studies are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":10869,"journal":{"name":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":"345-358"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141300282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-01Epub Date: 2024-06-13DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2024.2351081
Denali Boon, Julie E Goodman, Kyle J Colonna, Leon M Espira, Robyn L Prueitt
Over the past several decades, there have been many epidemiology studies on talc and cancer published in the scientific literature, and several reviews and meta-analyses of talc and respiratory, female reproductive, and stomach cancers, specifically. To help provide a resource for the evaluation of talc as a potential human carcinogen, we applied a consistent set of examination methods and criteria for all epidemiology studies that examined the association between talc exposure (by various routes) and cancers (of various types). We identified 30 cohort, 35 case-control, and 12 pooled studies that evaluated occupational, medicinal, and personal-care product talc exposure and cancers of the respiratory system, the female reproductive tract, the gastrointestinal tract, the urinary system, the lymphohematopoietic system, the prostate, male genital organs, and the central nervous system, as well as skin, eye, bone, connective tissue, peritoneal, and breast cancers. We tabulated study characteristics, quality, and results in a systematic manner, and evaluated all cancer types for which studies of at least three unique populations were available in a narrative review. We focused on study quality aspects most likely to impact the interpretation of results. We found that only one study, of medicinal talc use, evaluated direct exposure measurements for any individuals, though some used semi-quantitative exposure metrics, and few studies adequately assessed potential confounders. The only consistent associations were with ovarian cancer in case-control studies and these associations were likely impacted by recall and potentially other biases. This systematic review indicates that epidemiology studies do not support a causal association between occupational, medicinal, or personal talc exposure and any cancer in humans.
{"title":"A systematic review of the epidemiology evidence on talc and cancer.","authors":"Denali Boon, Julie E Goodman, Kyle J Colonna, Leon M Espira, Robyn L Prueitt","doi":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2351081","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2351081","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Over the past several decades, there have been many epidemiology studies on talc and cancer published in the scientific literature, and several reviews and meta-analyses of talc and respiratory, female reproductive, and stomach cancers, specifically. To help provide a resource for the evaluation of talc as a potential human carcinogen, we applied a consistent set of examination methods and criteria for all epidemiology studies that examined the association between talc exposure (by various routes) and cancers (of various types). We identified 30 cohort, 35 case-control, and 12 pooled studies that evaluated occupational, medicinal, and personal-care product talc exposure and cancers of the respiratory system, the female reproductive tract, the gastrointestinal tract, the urinary system, the lymphohematopoietic system, the prostate, male genital organs, and the central nervous system, as well as skin, eye, bone, connective tissue, peritoneal, and breast cancers. We tabulated study characteristics, quality, and results in a systematic manner, and evaluated all cancer types for which studies of at least three unique populations were available in a narrative review. We focused on study quality aspects most likely to impact the interpretation of results. We found that only one study, of medicinal talc use, evaluated direct exposure measurements for any individuals, though some used semi-quantitative exposure metrics, and few studies adequately assessed potential confounders. The only consistent associations were with ovarian cancer in case-control studies and these associations were likely impacted by recall and potentially other biases. This systematic review indicates that epidemiology studies do not support a causal association between occupational, medicinal, or personal talc exposure and any cancer in humans.</p>","PeriodicalId":10869,"journal":{"name":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":"394-417"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141310321","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-01Epub Date: 2024-06-13DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2024.2353174
Alison M Pecquet, Katy Bridgwood, David Cowie, Angela Hofstra, Yaoxing Wu, Sarah Whalley, Steven D Webb
In the risk assessment of agrochemicals, there has been a historical paucity of using data to refine the default adjustment factors, even though large datasets are available to support this. The current state of the science for addressing uncertainty regarding animal to human extrapolation (AFA) is to develop a "data-derived" adjustment factor (DDEF) to quantify such differences, if data are available. Toxicokinetic (TK) and toxicodynamic (TD) differences between species can be utilized for the DDEF, with human datasets being ideal yet rare. We identified a case for a currently registered herbicide, mesotrione, in which human TK and TD are available. This case study outlines an approach for the development of DDEFs using comparative human and animal data and based on an adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for inhibition of 4-hydroxyphenol pyruvate dioxygenase (HHPD). The calculated DDEF for rat to human extrapolation (AFA) for kinetics (AFAK = 2.5) was multiplied by the AFA for dynamics (AFAD = 0.3) resulting in a composite DDEF of ∼1 (AFA = 0.75). This reflects the AOP and available scientific evidence that humans are less sensitive than rats to the effects of HPPD inhibitors. Further analyses were conducted utilizing in vitro datasets from hepatocytes and liver cytosols and extrapolated to whole animal using in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) to support toxicodynamic extrapolation. The in vitro datasets resulted in the same AFAD as derived for in vivo data (AFAD = 0.3). These analyses demonstrate that a majority of the species differences are related to toxicodynamics. Future work with additional in vitro/in vivo datasets for other HPPD inhibitors and cell types will further support this result. This work demonstrates utilization of all available toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic data to replace default uncertainty factors for agrochemical human health risk assessment.
{"title":"Data derived extrapolation factors (DDEFs) for rat to human interspecies extrapolation for the HPPD inhibitor mesotrione.","authors":"Alison M Pecquet, Katy Bridgwood, David Cowie, Angela Hofstra, Yaoxing Wu, Sarah Whalley, Steven D Webb","doi":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2353174","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2353174","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the risk assessment of agrochemicals, there has been a historical paucity of using data to refine the default adjustment factors, even though large datasets are available to support this. The current state of the science for addressing uncertainty regarding animal to human extrapolation (AF<sub>A</sub>) is to develop a \"data-derived\" adjustment factor (DDEF) to quantify such differences, if data are available. Toxicokinetic (TK) and toxicodynamic (TD) differences between species can be utilized for the DDEF, with human datasets being ideal yet rare. We identified a case for a currently registered herbicide, mesotrione, in which human TK and TD are available. This case study outlines an approach for the development of DDEFs using comparative human and animal data and based on an adverse outcome pathway (AOP) for inhibition of 4-hydroxyphenol pyruvate dioxygenase (HHPD). The calculated DDEF for rat to human extrapolation (AF<sub>A</sub>) for kinetics (AF<sub>AK</sub> = 2.5) was multiplied by the AF<sub>A</sub> for dynamics (AF<sub>AD</sub> = 0.3) resulting in a composite DDEF of ∼1 (AF<sub>A</sub> = 0.75). This reflects the AOP and available scientific evidence that humans are less sensitive than rats to the effects of HPPD inhibitors. Further analyses were conducted utilizing <i>in vitro</i> datasets from hepatocytes and liver cytosols and extrapolated to whole animal using <i>in vitro</i> to <i>in vivo</i> extrapolation (IVIVE) to support toxicodynamic extrapolation. The <i>in vitro</i> datasets resulted in the same AF<sub>AD</sub> as derived for <i>in vivo</i> data (AF<sub>AD</sub> = 0.3). These analyses demonstrate that a majority of the species differences are related to toxicodynamics. Future work with additional <i>in vitro/in vivo</i> datasets for other HPPD inhibitors and cell types will further support this result. This work demonstrates utilization of all available toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic data to replace default uncertainty factors for agrochemical human health risk assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":10869,"journal":{"name":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":"418-429"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141310322","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-01Epub Date: 2024-06-04DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2024.2342448
Samantha Hughes, Ellen V S Hessel
Despite the growing epidemiological evidence of an association between toxin exposure and developmental neurotoxicity (DNT), systematic testing of DNT is not mandatory in international regulations for admission of pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals. However, to date around 200 compounds, ranging from pesticides, pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals, have been tested for DNT in the current OECD test guidelines (TG-443 or TG-426). There are calls for the development of new approach methodologies (NAMs) for DNT, which has resulted in a DNT testing battery using in vitro human cell-based assays. These assays provide a means to elucidate the molecular mechanisms of toxicity in humans which is lacking in animal-based toxicity tests. However, cell-based assays do not represent all steps of the complex process leading to DNT. Validated models with a multi-organ network of pathways that interact at the molecular, cellular and tissue level at very specific timepoints in a life cycle are currently missing. Consequently, whole model organisms are being developed to screen for, and causally link, new molecular targets of DNT compounds and how they affect whole brain development and neurobehavioral endpoints. Given the practical and ethical restraints associated with vertebrate testing, lower animal models that qualify as 3 R (reduce, refine and replace) models, including the nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) and the zebrafish (Danio rerio) will prove particularly valuable for unravelling toxicity pathways leading to DNT. Although not as complex as the human brain, these 3 R-models develop a complete functioning brain with numerous neurodevelopmental processes overlapping with human brain development. Importantly, the main signalling pathways relating to (neuro)development, metabolism and growth are highly conserved in these models. We propose the use of whole model organisms specifically zebrafish and C. elegans for DNT relevant endpoints.
{"title":"Zebrafish and nematodes as whole organism models to measure developmental neurotoxicity.","authors":"Samantha Hughes, Ellen V S Hessel","doi":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2342448","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2342448","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite the growing epidemiological evidence of an association between toxin exposure and developmental neurotoxicity (DNT), systematic testing of DNT is not mandatory in international regulations for admission of pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals. However, to date around 200 compounds, ranging from pesticides, pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals, have been tested for DNT in the current OECD test guidelines (TG-443 or TG-426). There are calls for the development of new approach methodologies (NAMs) for DNT, which has resulted in a DNT testing battery using <i>in vitro</i> human cell-based assays. These assays provide a means to elucidate the molecular mechanisms of toxicity in humans which is lacking in animal-based toxicity tests. However, cell-based assays do not represent all steps of the complex process leading to DNT. Validated models with a multi-organ network of pathways that interact at the molecular, cellular and tissue level at very specific timepoints in a life cycle are currently missing. Consequently, whole model organisms are being developed to screen for, and causally link, new molecular targets of DNT compounds and how they affect whole brain development and neurobehavioral endpoints. Given the practical and ethical restraints associated with vertebrate testing, lower animal models that qualify as 3 R (reduce, refine and replace) models, including the nematode (<i>Caenorhabditis elegans</i>) and the zebrafish (<i>Danio rerio</i>) will prove particularly valuable for unravelling toxicity pathways leading to DNT. Although not as complex as the human brain, these 3 R-models develop a complete functioning brain with numerous neurodevelopmental processes overlapping with human brain development. Importantly, the main signalling pathways relating to (neuro)development, metabolism and growth are highly conserved in these models. We propose the use of whole model organisms specifically zebrafish and <i>C. elegans</i> for DNT relevant endpoints.</p>","PeriodicalId":10869,"journal":{"name":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":"330-343"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141237398","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-01Epub Date: 2024-05-29DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2024.2342447
Sandra I Sulsky, Tracy Greene, P Robinan Gentry
To accurately characterize human health hazards, human, animal, and mechanistic data must be integrated and the relevance to the research question of all three lines of evidence must be considered. Mechanistic data are often critical to the full integration of animal and human data and to characterizing relevance and uncertainty. This novel evidence integration framework (EIF) provides a method for synthesizing data from comprehensive, systematic, quality-based assessments of the epidemiological and toxicological literature, including in vivo and in vitro mechanistic studies. It organizes data according to both the observed human health effects and the mechanism of action of the chemical, providing a method to support evidence synthesis. The disease-based component uses the evidence of human health outcomes studied in the best quality epidemiological literature to organize the toxicological data according to authors' stated purpose, with the pathophysiology of the disease determining the potential relevance of the toxicological data. The mechanism-based component organizes the data based on the proposed mechanisms of effect and data supporting events leading to each endpoint, with the epidemiological data potentially providing corroborating information. The EIF includes a method to cross-classify and describe the concordance of the data, and to characterize its uncertainty. At times, the two methods of organizing the data may lead to different conclusions. This facilitates identification of knowledge gaps and shows the impact of uncertainties on the strength of causal inference.
{"title":"A framework for integrating evidence to assess hazards and risk.","authors":"Sandra I Sulsky, Tracy Greene, P Robinan Gentry","doi":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2342447","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2342447","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To accurately characterize human health hazards, human, animal, and mechanistic data must be integrated and the relevance to the research question of all three lines of evidence must be considered. Mechanistic data are often critical to the full integration of animal and human data and to characterizing relevance and uncertainty. This novel evidence integration framework (EIF) provides a method for synthesizing data from comprehensive, systematic, quality-based assessments of the epidemiological and toxicological literature, including <i>in vivo</i> and <i>in vitro</i> mechanistic studies. It organizes data according to both the observed human health effects and the mechanism of action of the chemical, providing a method to support evidence synthesis. The disease-based component uses the evidence of human health outcomes studied in the best quality epidemiological literature to organize the toxicological data according to authors' stated purpose, with the pathophysiology of the disease determining the potential relevance of the toxicological data. The mechanism-based component organizes the data based on the proposed mechanisms of effect and data supporting events leading to each endpoint, with the epidemiological data potentially providing corroborating information. The EIF includes a method to cross-classify and describe the concordance of the data, and to characterize its uncertainty. At times, the two methods of organizing the data may lead to different conclusions. This facilitates identification of knowledge gaps and shows the impact of uncertainties on the strength of causal inference.</p>","PeriodicalId":10869,"journal":{"name":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":"315-329"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141160566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-01Epub Date: 2024-05-10DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2024.2341020
Annick D van den Brand, Ellen V S Hessel, Rinus Rijk, Bianca van de Ven, Niels M Leijten, Emiel Rorije, Shalenie P den Braver-Sewradj
The use of bisphenol A (BPA), a substance of very high concern, is proposed to be banned in food contact materials (FCMs) in the European Union. To prevent regrettable substitution of BPA by alternatives with similar or unknown hazardous properties, it is of importance to gain the relevant toxicological information on potential BPA alternative substances and monitor them adequately. We created an inventory of over 300 substances mentioned as potential BPA alternatives in regulatory reports and scientific literature. This study presents a prioritization strategy to identify substances that may be used as an alternative to BPA in FCMs. We prioritized 20 potential BPA alternatives of which 10 are less familiar. We subsequently reviewed the available information on the 10 prioritized less familiar substances regarding hazard profiles and migration potential obtained from scientific literature and in silico screening tools to identify a possible risk of the substances. Major data gaps regarding the hazard profiles of the prioritized substances exist, although the scarce available data give some indications on the possible hazard for some of the substances (like bisphenol TMC, 4,4-dihydroxybenzophenone, and tetrachlorobisphenol A). In addition, very little is known about the actual use and exposure to these substances. More toxicological research and monitoring of these substances in FCMs are, therefore, required to avoid regrettable substitution of BPA in FCM.
欧盟建议禁止在食品接触材料 (FCM) 中使用双酚 A (BPA),这是一种引起高度关注的物质。为防止双酚 A 被具有类似或未知危险特性的替代品取代,我们必须获得潜在双酚 A 替代物质的相关毒理学信息,并对其进行充分监控。我们编制了一份清单,列出了监管报告和科学文献中提到的作为潜在双酚 A 替代品的 300 多种物质。本研究提出了一种优先排序策略,以确定可在食品添加剂中用作双酚 A 替代品的物质。我们对 20 种潜在的双酚 A 替代品进行了优先排序,其中 10 种较为陌生。随后,我们审查了从科学文献和硅学筛选工具中获得的有关这 10 种优先考虑的不太熟悉的物质的危害概况和迁移潜力的可用信息,以确定这些物质可能存在的风险。尽管稀缺的可用数据为某些物质(如双酚 TMC、4,4-二羟基二苯甲酮和四氯双酚 A)可能存在的危害提供了一些迹象,但在优先物质的危害概况方面仍存在重大数据缺口。此外,人们对这些物质的实际使用和接触情况知之甚少。因此,需要对薄膜制造中的这些物质进行更多的毒理学研究和监测,以避免令人遗憾地在薄膜制造中使用双酚 A 替代品。
{"title":"A prioritization strategy for functional alternatives to bisphenol A in food contact materials.","authors":"Annick D van den Brand, Ellen V S Hessel, Rinus Rijk, Bianca van de Ven, Niels M Leijten, Emiel Rorije, Shalenie P den Braver-Sewradj","doi":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2341020","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2341020","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of bisphenol A (BPA), a substance of very high concern, is proposed to be banned in food contact materials (FCMs) in the European Union. To prevent regrettable substitution of BPA by alternatives with similar or unknown hazardous properties, it is of importance to gain the relevant toxicological information on potential BPA alternative substances and monitor them adequately. We created an inventory of over 300 substances mentioned as potential BPA alternatives in regulatory reports and scientific literature. This study presents a prioritization strategy to identify substances that may be used as an alternative to BPA in FCMs. We prioritized 20 potential BPA alternatives of which 10 are less familiar. We subsequently reviewed the available information on the 10 prioritized less familiar substances regarding hazard profiles and migration potential obtained from scientific literature and <i>in silico</i> screening tools to identify a possible risk of the substances. Major data gaps regarding the hazard profiles of the prioritized substances exist, although the scarce available data give some indications on the possible hazard for some of the substances (like bisphenol TMC, 4,4-dihydroxybenzophenone, and tetrachlorobisphenol A). In addition, very little is known about the actual use and exposure to these substances. More toxicological research and monitoring of these substances in FCMs are, therefore, required to avoid regrettable substitution of BPA in FCM.</p>","PeriodicalId":10869,"journal":{"name":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":"291-314"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140896946","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-16DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2024.2316136
Neva Jacobs, Daniel G. Kougias, Fian Louie, Benjamin Roberts
Consumers are confronted with conflicting information regarding the safety of specific foods. For example, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) publishes an annual consumer guide in which they ran...
{"title":"A screening-level human health risk assessment of dietary intake of pesticide residues in produce as compared to consumer guide recommendations","authors":"Neva Jacobs, Daniel G. Kougias, Fian Louie, Benjamin Roberts","doi":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2316136","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2024.2316136","url":null,"abstract":"Consumers are confronted with conflicting information regarding the safety of specific foods. For example, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) publishes an annual consumer guide in which they ran...","PeriodicalId":10869,"journal":{"name":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140613526","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-01Epub Date: 2024-05-16DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2024.2337435
Louis A Cox, William J Thompson, Kenneth A Mundt
<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Causal epidemiology for regulatory risk analysis seeks to evaluate how removing or reducing exposures would change disease occurrence rates. We define <i>interventional probability of causation</i> (IPoC) as the change in probability of a disease (or other harm) occurring over a lifetime or other specified time interval that would be caused by a specified change in exposure, as predicted by a fully specified causal model. We define the closely related concept of <i>causal assigned share</i> (CAS) as the predicted fraction of disease risk that would be removed or prevented by a specified reduction in exposure, holding other variables fixed. Traditional approaches used to evaluate the preventable risk implications of epidemiological associations, including population attributable fraction (PAF) and the Bradford Hill considerations, cannot reveal whether removing a risk factor would reduce disease incidence. We argue that modern formal causal models coupled with causal artificial intelligence (CAI) and realistically partial and imperfect knowledge of underlying disease mechanisms, show great promise for determining and quantifying IPoC and CAS for exposures and diseases of practical interest.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We briefly review key CAI concepts and terms and then apply them to define IPoC and CAS. We present steps to quantify IPoC using a fully specified causal Bayesian network (BN) model. Useful bounds for quantitative IPoC and CAS calculations are derived for a two-stage clonal expansion (TSCE) model for carcinogenesis and illustrated by applying them to benzene and formaldehyde based on available epidemiological and partial mechanistic evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Causal BN models for benzene and risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) incorporating mechanistic, toxicological and epidemiological findings show that prolonged high-intensity exposure to benzene can increase risk of AML (IPoC of up to 7e-5, CAS of up to 54%). By contrast, no causal pathway leading from formaldehyde exposure to increased risk of AML was identified, consistent with much previous mechanistic, toxicological and epidemiological evidence; therefore, the IPoC and CAS for formaldehyde-induced AML are likely to be zero.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We conclude that the IPoC approach can differentiate between likely and unlikely causal factors and can provide useful upper bounds for IPoC and CAS for some exposures and diseases of practical importance. For causal factors, IPoC can help to estimate the quantitative impacts on health risks of reducing exposures, even in situations where mechanistic evidence is realistically incomplete and individual-level exposure-response parameters are uncertain. This illustrates the strength that can be gained for causal inference by using causal models to generate testable hypotheses and then obtaining toxicological data to test the hypotheses implied by the models-and, where nec
导言:用于监管风险分析的因果流行病学旨在评估消除或减少暴露会如何改变疾病发生率。我们将干预性因果概率 (IPoC) 定义为:根据完全特定的因果模型预测,在一生中或其他特定时间间隔内,由特定暴露变化引起的疾病(或其他伤害)发生概率的变化。我们将与之密切相关的因果分配比例(CAS)概念定义为,在其他变量固定不变的情况下,通过减少特定的暴露量而消除或预防的疾病风险预测分数。用于评估流行病学关联的可预防风险影响的传统方法,包括人口可归因分数(PAF)和布拉德福德-希尔(Bradford Hill)考虑因素,无法揭示去除某一风险因素是否会降低疾病发病率。我们认为,现代正规因果模型与因果人工智能(CAI)以及对潜在疾病机制的部分和不完善的现实知识相结合,在确定和量化实际意义上的暴露和疾病的 IPoC 和 CAS 方面大有可为:我们简要回顾了 CAI 的关键概念和术语,然后将其应用于定义 IPoC 和 CAS。我们介绍了使用完全指定的因果贝叶斯网络(BN)模型量化 IPoC 的步骤。根据现有的流行病学证据和部分机理证据,我们得出了两阶段克隆扩增(TSCE)致癌模型的 IPoC 和 CAS 定量计算的有用界限,并将其应用于苯和甲醛:苯与急性髓性白血病(AML)风险的因果 BN 模型结合了机理、毒理学和流行病学研究结果,表明长期高强度接触苯会增加急性髓性白血病的风险(IpoC 高达 7e-5,CAS 高达 54%)。相比之下,没有发现从接触甲醛到增加急性髓细胞性白血病风险的因果途径,这与之前的许多机理、毒理学和流行病学证据一致;因此,甲醛诱发急性髓细胞性白血病的 IPoC 和 CAS 很可能为零:我们得出的结论是,IpoC 方法可以区分可能的和不可能的致病因素,并能为某些具有实际重要性的暴露和疾病提供有用的 IPoC 和 CAS 上限。对于因果因素,IpoC 可以帮助估算减少暴露对健康风险的定量影响,即使在机理证据不完整、个体水平的暴露-反应参数不确定的情况下也是如此。这说明,通过使用因果模型来产生可检验的假设,然后获取毒理学数据来检验模型所隐含的假设--并在必要时对模型进行完善--可以增强因果推断的能力。这种良性循环为因果判定提供了更多的洞察力,而这些洞察力可能无法仅从证据权重的考量中获得。
{"title":"Interventional probability of causation (IPoC) with epidemiological and partial mechanistic evidence: benzene vs. formaldehyde and acute myeloid leukemia (AML).","authors":"Louis A Cox, William J Thompson, Kenneth A Mundt","doi":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2337435","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2337435","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Causal epidemiology for regulatory risk analysis seeks to evaluate how removing or reducing exposures would change disease occurrence rates. We define <i>interventional probability of causation</i> (IPoC) as the change in probability of a disease (or other harm) occurring over a lifetime or other specified time interval that would be caused by a specified change in exposure, as predicted by a fully specified causal model. We define the closely related concept of <i>causal assigned share</i> (CAS) as the predicted fraction of disease risk that would be removed or prevented by a specified reduction in exposure, holding other variables fixed. Traditional approaches used to evaluate the preventable risk implications of epidemiological associations, including population attributable fraction (PAF) and the Bradford Hill considerations, cannot reveal whether removing a risk factor would reduce disease incidence. We argue that modern formal causal models coupled with causal artificial intelligence (CAI) and realistically partial and imperfect knowledge of underlying disease mechanisms, show great promise for determining and quantifying IPoC and CAS for exposures and diseases of practical interest.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We briefly review key CAI concepts and terms and then apply them to define IPoC and CAS. We present steps to quantify IPoC using a fully specified causal Bayesian network (BN) model. Useful bounds for quantitative IPoC and CAS calculations are derived for a two-stage clonal expansion (TSCE) model for carcinogenesis and illustrated by applying them to benzene and formaldehyde based on available epidemiological and partial mechanistic evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Causal BN models for benzene and risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) incorporating mechanistic, toxicological and epidemiological findings show that prolonged high-intensity exposure to benzene can increase risk of AML (IPoC of up to 7e-5, CAS of up to 54%). By contrast, no causal pathway leading from formaldehyde exposure to increased risk of AML was identified, consistent with much previous mechanistic, toxicological and epidemiological evidence; therefore, the IPoC and CAS for formaldehyde-induced AML are likely to be zero.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We conclude that the IPoC approach can differentiate between likely and unlikely causal factors and can provide useful upper bounds for IPoC and CAS for some exposures and diseases of practical importance. For causal factors, IPoC can help to estimate the quantitative impacts on health risks of reducing exposures, even in situations where mechanistic evidence is realistically incomplete and individual-level exposure-response parameters are uncertain. This illustrates the strength that can be gained for causal inference by using causal models to generate testable hypotheses and then obtaining toxicological data to test the hypotheses implied by the models-and, where nec","PeriodicalId":10869,"journal":{"name":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":"252-289"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140956455","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-01Epub Date: 2024-03-27DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2023.2297751
Paolo Boffetta, Luisa Sambati, Michele Sassano
An association between exposure to arsenic (As) and neurologic and behavioral effects has been reported in some studies, but no systematic review is available of the evidence linking As in drinking water and neurobehavioral effects after consideration of study quality and potential confounding, with focus on low-level circumstances of exposure. We conducted a systematic review and reported it in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, through a search of the databases PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase. We included in the review the studies reporting results based on exposure from drinking water in humans. Endpoints were heterogeneous across studies, so we classified them into eight broad domains and developed an ad-hoc system to evaluate their methodological quality, based on three tiers. It was not possible to conduct meta-analysis because of the heterogeneity in exposure assessment and in the definition and assessment of outcomes. The search identified 18,518 articles. After elimination of duplicates and irrelevant articles, we retained 106 articles which reported results on As exposure and neurobehavioral effects, of which 22 reported risk estimates from exposure in drinking water (six among adults and 16 among children). None of the studies was conducted blindly. Among the studies in adults, two, which were conducted in highly exposed populations, were classified as high quality. These two studies were broadly consistent in reporting an association between exposure to As and decline in cognitive function; however, they provide no evidence of an association for exposure below 75 μg/L. The four lower-quality studies were based on populations with low exposure; these studies reported associations with inconsistent outcomes, few of which remained statistically significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons. Among the five high-quality studies of children, one reported an association between As in drinking water and intellectual function, whereas none of the other studies reported an association with different neurobehavioral indicators, after adjusting for potential confounders and multiple comparisons. Out of seven intermediate-quality studies, three reported an association with cognitive function or other outcomes; but sources of bias were not adequately controlled. The remaining studies were negative. The four low-quality studies did not contribute to the overall evidence because of methodological limitations. Our assessment of the available literature showed a lack of evidence for a causal association between exposure to As in drinking water and neurobehavioral effects. To clarify whether such an association exists, further studies prospectively evaluating changes in both the concentration of As in drinking water during the life course, and neurobehavioral outcomes, as well as appropriately controlling for potential confounders, are needed.
{"title":"Systematic review of studies on exposure to arsenic in drinking water and cognitive and neurobehavioral effects.","authors":"Paolo Boffetta, Luisa Sambati, Michele Sassano","doi":"10.1080/10408444.2023.2297751","DOIUrl":"10.1080/10408444.2023.2297751","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>An association between exposure to arsenic (As) and neurologic and behavioral effects has been reported in some studies, but no systematic review is available of the evidence linking As in drinking water and neurobehavioral effects after consideration of study quality and potential confounding, with focus on low-level circumstances of exposure. We conducted a systematic review and reported it in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, through a search of the databases PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase. We included in the review the studies reporting results based on exposure from drinking water in humans. Endpoints were heterogeneous across studies, so we classified them into eight broad domains and developed an ad-hoc system to evaluate their methodological quality, based on three tiers. It was not possible to conduct meta-analysis because of the heterogeneity in exposure assessment and in the definition and assessment of outcomes. The search identified 18,518 articles. After elimination of duplicates and irrelevant articles, we retained 106 articles which reported results on As exposure and neurobehavioral effects, of which 22 reported risk estimates from exposure in drinking water (six among adults and 16 among children). None of the studies was conducted blindly. Among the studies in adults, two, which were conducted in highly exposed populations, were classified as high quality. These two studies were broadly consistent in reporting an association between exposure to As and decline in cognitive function; however, they provide no evidence of an association for exposure below 75 μg/L. The four lower-quality studies were based on populations with low exposure; these studies reported associations with inconsistent outcomes, few of which remained statistically significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons. Among the five high-quality studies of children, one reported an association between As in drinking water and intellectual function, whereas none of the other studies reported an association with different neurobehavioral indicators, after adjusting for potential confounders and multiple comparisons. Out of seven intermediate-quality studies, three reported an association with cognitive function or other outcomes; but sources of bias were not adequately controlled. The remaining studies were negative. The four low-quality studies did not contribute to the overall evidence because of methodological limitations. Our assessment of the available literature showed a lack of evidence for a causal association between exposure to As in drinking water and neurobehavioral effects. To clarify whether such an association exists, further studies prospectively evaluating changes in both the concentration of As in drinking water during the life course, and neurobehavioral outcomes, as well as appropriately controlling for potential confounders, are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":10869,"journal":{"name":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":"174-193"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140293075","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}