International Journal of Toxicology最新文献

Drug development is a lengthy process that promotes and protects the health and safety of future patients. Nonclinical safety studies follow essentially similar designs that fulfill regulatory requirements but are amended based on factors including the mechanism of action, class of molecule, and route of administration. Clinical observations, clinical pathology, and macroscopic pathology in dose range-finding (DRF) studies generally provide sufficient information to select doses for pivotal studies by most delivery routes. Inhaled drug candidates are recognized for producing adverse effects on the respiratory system at the microscopic level that may otherwise be unpredictable; therefore, unlike other routes of administration, inhalation DRF studies typically include histopathology of the respiratory tract. Histopathology evaluations can add several weeks to the Investigational New Drug (IND) application timeline along with additional costs but have been considered necessary to support accurate dose selection for adequate safety margins, thereby potentially avoiding additional studies and animal usage by ensuring achievement of a NOAEL in the pivotal studies. Therefore, DRF inhalation studies initiated from 2018 to 2021 at Labcorp were reviewed to determine whether inclusion of histopathology on preliminary inhalation studies was necessary for subsequent dose selection. Histopathology findings in the DRF impacted dose selection in pivotal inhalation studies for approximately 45% of rat and dog studies. This review identified histopathology findings in rat and dog that support continued inclusion of respiratory tract histopathology in DRF studies. Future investigations will evaluate potential surrogate endpoints for these findings, which could reduce nonclinical drug development timelines by several weeks.

This is the 12th in a series of salary surveys conducted at approximately 3-year intervals for toxicologists that began in 1988. Previous salary surveys were conducted in 1988,¹ 1991,² 1995,³ 1998,⁴ 2001,⁵ 2004,⁶ 2007 (which was posted electronically, but not published), 2012,⁷ 2016,⁸ 2020,⁹ and 2022.¹⁰ In addition to presenting the 2024 results, herein we are providing additional data and an analysis of the trends for employment and pay in toxicology over the last 37 years.

The skin is the largest organ in the body and the only one to come into contact with solar UV radiation (UVR). UVA (320-400 nm) is a significant contributor to UV-related skin damage. The UVA spectrum makes up over 95% of solar-UV energy reaching the earth's surface causing the majority of the visible signs of skin photoaging. Many consumer products also emit UVA, including nail dryers. There have been sporadic reports suggesting that these units may be contributing to skin cancer incidence. This notion was recently bolstered by a finding that nail dryer-irradiated mammalian skin cells develop a mutational signature consistent with UVA exposure. This report was surprising considering the comparatively low level of UVA to which the skin is exposed during nail treatments. In this research, we investigated how UVA-emitting devices caused cytotoxic/genotoxic impact after only low levels of UVA exposure. Our data showed that levels of UVA in the unit are highly variable and location dependent. We confirm previous reports that using prolonged exposure protocols could induce significant levels of DNA damage. It was also determined that UV-induced DNA damage only partially correlated with the level of UVA fluency. On investigation, we found that the unit had a rapid increase in internal temperature when in use. Exposing human cells to these elevated temperatures acted synergistically with UVA to magnify the cytotoxic and genotoxic impact of UV irradiation.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) reviewed the safety of 10 polyol phosphates. Some of the possible functions in cosmetics that are reported for this ingredient group are chelating agents, oral care agents, and skin conditioning agents. The Panel reviewed relevant data relating to the safety of these ingredients under the intended conditions of use in cosmetic formulations, and concluded that Sodium Phytate, Phytic Acid, Phytin, and Trisodium Inositol Triphosphate are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in the safety assessment. The Panel also concluded that the data are insufficient to determine the safety of the following 6 ingredients as used in cosmetics: Disodium Glucose Phosphate, Manganese Fructose Diphosphate, Sodium Mannose Phosphate, Trisodium Fructose Diphosphate, Xylityl Phosphate, and Zinc Fructose Diphosphate.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) reviewed the safety of 10 alkanoyl lactyl lactate salts. These ingredients have the surfactant function in cosmetics in common. The Panel reviewed data relevant to the safety of these ingredients, and concluded that these 10 ingredients are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in the safety assessment when formulated to be nonirritating and nonsensitizing, which may be based on a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) or other accepted methodologies.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) first published a safety assessment of Sodium Dehydroacetate and Dehydroacetic Acid in 1985. The Panel previously concluded that Sodium Dehydroacetate and Dehydroacetic Acid are safe as used in the present practices of use and concentration, as stated in that report. Upon re-review in 2003, the Panel reaffirmed the original conclusion, as published in 2006. The Panel reviewed updated frequency and concentration of use data again in 2023, in addition to any 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 1985 conclusion.

The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety (Panel) assessed the safety of three methylxanthines, Caffeine, Theobromine, and Theophylline, as used in cosmetics. All of these ingredients are reported to function as skin-conditioning agents in cosmetic products. The Panel reviewed the data relevant to the safety of these ingredients and concluded that Caffeine, Theobromine, and Theophylline are safe in cosmetics in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment.