International Journal of Toxicology最新文献

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) first published the Final Report of the safety of Isobutane, Isopentane, Butane, and Propane in 1982. The Panel previously concluded that these ingredients are considered safe as cosmetic ingredients under the present conditions of concentration and use, as described in that safety assessment. Upon re-review in 2002, the Panel reaffirmed the original conclusion, as published in 2005. The Panel reviewed update frequency and concentration of use data again in 2023, in addition to newly available, relevant safety data. Considering this information, as well as the information provided in the original safety assessment and the prior re-review document, the Panel reaffirmed the 1982 conclusion for Isobutane, Isopentane, Butane, and Propane.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of Mannitol, Sorbitol, and Xylitol as used in cosmetics. These ingredients are reported to function as humectants, skin-conditioning agents, or flavoring agents. The Panel considered the available data and concluded that these sugar alcohol ingredients are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in the safety assessment.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) reviewed the safety of Ascorbyl Glucoside and Sodium Ascorbyl Glucoside in cosmetic products. These ingredients are reported to have the following functions in cosmetics: antioxidant, and skin-conditioning agent-miscellaneous. The Panel reviewed data relevant to the safety of these ingredients in cosmetic formulations, and concluded that Ascorbyl Glucoside and Sodium Ascorbyl Glucoside are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of 27 wheat-derived ingredients. Most of these ingredients are reported to function as skin conditioning agents in cosmetic products. The Panel reviewed the available data to determine the safety of these ingredients. Industry should continue to use good manufacturing practices to limit impurities that could be present in botanical ingredients. The Panel concluded that 21 wheat-derived ingredients are safe in cosmetics in the practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment. However, the Panel also concluded that the available data are insufficient to make a determination of safety that the remaining six wheat-derived ingredients are safe under the intended conditions of use in cosmetic formulations.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of Triphenyl Phosphate, which is reported to function as a plasticizer in manicuring products. The Panel reviewed the available data to determine the safety of this ingredient. The Panel concluded that Triphenyl Phosphate is safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) reviewed the safety of 28 soy-derived ingredients as used in cosmetic products. These ingredients are reported to primarily function as antioxidants, skin protectants, skin-conditioning agents, and hair-conditioning agents. The Panel considered the available data relating to the safety of these ingredients in cosmetic formulations, and concluded that 24 of the 28 soy-derived ingredients are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment. The Panel also concluded that the available data are insufficient to make a determination that Glycine Max (Soybean) Callus Culture, Glycine Max (Soybean) Callus Culture Extract, Glycine Max (Soybean) Callus Extract, and Glycine Max (Soybean) Phytoplacenta Conditioned Media are safe under the intended conditions of use in cosmetic formulations.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of 14 alkyl amide MIPA ingredients as used in cosmetics. All of these ingredients are reported to function in cosmetics as a surfactant - foam booster and/or viscosity increasing agent. The Panel considered the available data, as well as data on read-across sources, and concluded these ingredients are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment when formulated to be non-irritating.

Sulfur mustard (SM) is a highly toxic bifunctional alkylating agent that inflicts severe damage on the respiratory tract. Although numerous studies have examined the mechanisms underlying SM-induced pulmonary injury, the exact pathways involved remain unclear. This study aims to investigate an acute pulmonary injury model, with SM administered as a single intraperitoneal injection (8 mg/kg) or single intratracheal instillation (2 mg/kg) at equal toxicity doses (1LD50). The results revealed that epithelial cells in the alveolar septa of the intraperitoneal SM group exhibited a significantly higher expression of apoptotic markers, including pro-apoptotic protein Bax, caspase-3, and caspase-9 proteins, than those in the tracheal SM group. Conversely, the expression of the anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-2 was significantly lower in the intraperitoneal SM group than in the tracheal SM group, as confirmed by TUNEL staining and immunohistochemical staining. The intraperitoneal SM group exhibited markedly higher expression of fibrosis-related proteins, including MMP-2, MMP-9, TIMP-1, TIMP-2, collagen type I, collagen type III, TGF-β1, and Smad7, than the tracheal SM group. These markers, detected through immunohistochemical immunolabeling, indicate a more significant fibrotic response in the intraperitoneal group. In summary, this study demonstrates that intraperitoneal exposure to SM results in increased apoptosis, elevated expression of pro-apoptotic proteins, and fibrosis-related proteins in the alveolar epithelial cells compared with intratracheal exposure, even at equivalent toxicity levels. Our findings highlight the suitability of the intraperitoneal route for further investigation and identify apoptotic and fibrosis-related proteins as potential targets for intervention in SM-induced pulmonary injury.

The therapeutic window of antibody drug-conjugates (ADC) remains challenging due to safety issues such as interstitial lung disease (ILD) observed with specific deruxtecan-based ADCs. To avoid ILD, we designed M9140 by conjugating the maleimide-containing hydrophilic β-glucuronide linker to exatecan and our anti-CEACAM5 (CarcinoEmbryonic Antigen-related Cell Adhesion Molecule 5) specific antibody. Following repeated iv-infusion at 3 to 30 mg/kg of M9140 every 3 weeks, the pathological findings obtained in cynomolgus monkeys were confined to gastrointestinal and hematolymphoid tissues and resembled the toxicity of exatecan. At 24 mg/kg or higher, transient reductions in neutrophil and reticulocyte counts were observed with each dosing event along with reversible anemia throughout the study. The no observed adverse effect level was 24 mg/kg and the maximum tolerated dose was 30 mg/kg. The difference in toxicity by this small dose increment was correlated with a 2.5-fold difference in plasma exatecan exposure indicating antigen-independent toxicity. As anticipated, no lung toxicity was found with M9140 in these studies that were similar in study design to those used to confirm ILD with trastuzumab-deruxtecan in monkeys. Since the non-human primate model is regarded as predictive for the ILD risk in humans, this result indicates a low risk for ILD when applying M9140 to patients. The current M9140 safety data are discussed with special focus on the absence or presence of ILD with other antibody camptothecin-conjugates, for which a hypothetical pathogenic mechanism is postulated here. The favorable nonclinical profile of M9140 warrants further investigation in patients with CEACAM5-overexpressing tumors.

A BioSafe-sponsored survey investigated how vaccine companies (n = 12) perceive the value of the repeat-dose toxicity studies for safety assessment of vaccine candidates. As all major vaccine developers were part of the survey, it was considered representative for the industry practices up to 2022. Vaccine developers indicated that they see scientific value in performing repeat-dose toxicity studies with vaccines, especially when novel components (e.g., adjuvant) or technology is being used. However, a few (3/12) also indicated that repeat-dose toxicity studies could be replaced by a pharmacology study with additional toxicity parameters. For the majority of companies (9/12), findings from the repeat-dose toxicity studies never prevented or postponed a first-in-human (FIH) trial. In the remaining 3 companies, a total of 4 occurrences of postponement or prevention of clinical development occurred and in only 2 of these cases was the finding considered related to the vaccine. A platform approach has been successfully implemented for influenza vaccines already in 2016, and an outline of the regulatory requirements for a platform approach has been recently documented in the latest infectious disease mRNA-LNP vaccine guideline, as well as in the guidance on the development and licensure of COVID-19 vaccines presented by the FDA. Vaccine developers are seeking to extend this platform approach to the development of new vaccines, building on established technologies and using well-defined manufacturing processes. This approach could support reduction of animal use (a principle of 3Rs) while still providing reassurance of the nonclinical safety of these products.