Jürg A. Zarn, Sebastian L.B. König, Holly V. Shaw, H. Christoph Geiser
{"title":"分析历史控制数据在农药毒性监管研究评估中的应用。","authors":"Jürg A. Zarn, Sebastian L.B. König, Holly V. Shaw, H. Christoph Geiser","doi":"10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The concurrent control group is the most important reference for the interpretation of toxicity studies. However, pooled information on control animals from independent studies, <em>i.e.</em>, historical control data (HCD), is also used for the interpretation of results. Currently, an overview on actual HCD use in regulatory toxicology is lacking. Therefore, we evaluated the HCD use of the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues from 2004 to 2021 and compared it with recommendations in regulatory guidelines and in the literature. We found that HCD was used routinely and exclusively to avoid potential false positive decisions regarding the treatment-relatedness of effects, mostly using the HCD range, <em>i.e.,</em> the most extreme values, as a benchmark. HCD were not used to avoid potential false negative decisions or for quality control of the index study. The central assumption of the HCD use, namely that the HCD and control group of the index study follow the same underlying distribution because they are samples of the same data generation process, was not investigated, although numerous factors potentially contribute to effect variation between the different control groups pooled in the HCD. We recommend that the existing guidelines be revised to improve the robustness and transparency of toxicological assessments.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":20852,"journal":{"name":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","volume":"154 ","pages":"Article 105724"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An analysis of the use of historical control data in the assessment of regulatory pesticide toxicity studies\",\"authors\":\"Jürg A. Zarn, Sebastian L.B. König, Holly V. Shaw, H. Christoph Geiser\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105724\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The concurrent control group is the most important reference for the interpretation of toxicity studies. However, pooled information on control animals from independent studies, <em>i.e.</em>, historical control data (HCD), is also used for the interpretation of results. Currently, an overview on actual HCD use in regulatory toxicology is lacking. Therefore, we evaluated the HCD use of the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues from 2004 to 2021 and compared it with recommendations in regulatory guidelines and in the literature. We found that HCD was used routinely and exclusively to avoid potential false positive decisions regarding the treatment-relatedness of effects, mostly using the HCD range, <em>i.e.,</em> the most extreme values, as a benchmark. HCD were not used to avoid potential false negative decisions or for quality control of the index study. The central assumption of the HCD use, namely that the HCD and control group of the index study follow the same underlying distribution because they are samples of the same data generation process, was not investigated, although numerous factors potentially contribute to effect variation between the different control groups pooled in the HCD. We recommend that the existing guidelines be revised to improve the robustness and transparency of toxicological assessments.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20852,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology\",\"volume\":\"154 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105724\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-18\",\"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/S027323002400165X\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027323002400165X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
An analysis of the use of historical control data in the assessment of regulatory pesticide toxicity studies
The concurrent control group is the most important reference for the interpretation of toxicity studies. However, pooled information on control animals from independent studies, i.e., historical control data (HCD), is also used for the interpretation of results. Currently, an overview on actual HCD use in regulatory toxicology is lacking. Therefore, we evaluated the HCD use of the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues from 2004 to 2021 and compared it with recommendations in regulatory guidelines and in the literature. We found that HCD was used routinely and exclusively to avoid potential false positive decisions regarding the treatment-relatedness of effects, mostly using the HCD range, i.e., the most extreme values, as a benchmark. HCD were not used to avoid potential false negative decisions or for quality control of the index study. The central assumption of the HCD use, namely that the HCD and control group of the index study follow the same underlying distribution because they are samples of the same data generation process, was not investigated, although numerous factors potentially contribute to effect variation between the different control groups pooled in the HCD. We recommend that the existing guidelines be revised to improve the robustness and transparency of toxicological assessments.
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)