Review of interspecies risk comparisons

doi:10.1016/0273-2300(88)90028-1

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Volume 8, Issue 2, June 1988, Pages 191-206

https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2300(88)90028-1 Get rights and content

Abstract

Use of laboratory animal data to make quantitative predictions of the risks of toxic effects in humans assumes that a relationship exists between the potencies in animals and humans and that its parameters can be estimated adequately. Such “scaling rules” have been used to predict the risks of carcinogenicity or other effects. A survey of the literature yielded only a modest number of papers devoted to the validity of these interspecies risk extrapolations, of which approximately 25 attempt quantitative comparisons for either radiation or chemical hazards. Some authors have investigated relatively large data sets in an attempt to identify the scaling rule that provides the best correlation of risks in two or more species. Others have selected a scaling rule and investigated whether its predictions from data in laboratory species match the risks found in humans. Opinion is divided on the validity of specific extrapolation rules and the utility of animal experiments for quantitative risk assessment. Correlations exist among risk levels in various species, but many factors appear to influence toxicity that are not captured in a simple scaling rule such as dose per unit weight or per unit surface area. Although scaling rules are useful, better projections will be made if case-specific factors such as pharmacokinetics can be considered. Further careful comparisons of quantitative risk estimates are needed.

References (38)

L. Bernstein et al.
Some tautologous aspects of the comparison of carcinogenic potency in rats and mice
Fundam. Appl. Toxicol.
(1985)
I.W.F. Davidson et al.
Biological basis for extrapolation across mammalian species
Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.
(1986)
P.J. Gehring et al.
Risk of angiosarcoma in workers exposed to vinyl chloride as predicted from studies in rats
Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.
(1979)
E.J. Calabrese
Scaling: An attempt to find a common denominator
D.B. Clayson
Trans-species and trans-tissue extrapolation of carcinogenicity assays
Basic Life Sci.
(1983)
E.A.C. Crouch
Carcinogenic risk assessment—The consequences of believing models
Basic. Life Sci.
(1983)
E.A.C. Crouch
Uncertainties in interspecies extrapolations of carcinogenicity
Environ. Health Perspect.
(1983)
E. Crouch et al.
Interspecies comparison of carcinogenic potency
J. Toxicol. Environ. Health
(1979)
K.S. Crump et al.
Approaches to Carcinogenic, Mutagenic and Teratogenic Risk Assessment
W.H. DuMouchel et al.
Bayes methods for combining the results of cancer studies in humans and other species
J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.
(1983)

L. Ehrenberg et al.

Extrapolation of carcinogenic risk from animal experiments to man

Environ. Health Perspect.

(1978)

Environ Corporation

E.J. Freireich et al.

Quantitative comparison of toxicity of anticancer agents in mouse, rat, hamster, dog, monkey, and man

Cancer Chemother. Rep.

(1966)

R.J.M. Fry

Extrapolation from experimental systems to man: A review of the problems and the possibilities

D.W. Gaylor et al.

Relative potency of chemical carcinogens in rodents

Risk Anal.

(1986)

L.S. Gold et al.

A carcinogenic potency data-base of the standardized results of animal bioassays

Environ. Health Perspect.

(1984)

D. Grahn

Biological effects of protracted low dose radiation exposure of man and animals

D. Grahn et al.

Analytical approaches to and interpretations of data on time, rate and cause of death of mice exposed to external gamma irradiation

D.G. Hoel

Animal experimentation and its relevance to man

Environ. Health Perspect.

(1979)

Cited by (18)

A four-step approach to evaluate mixtures for consistency with dose addition
2013, Toxicology
Citation Excerpt :
Such a situation is important to understand because dose addition is incorrect yet it is the approach that would have been used if no mixture data were available because of the components’ toxicological similarity. This thought experiment also emphasizes why toxicological judgment must be combined with the statistical characterization to properly interpret the model comparisons in terms of potential toxicity (Brown et al., 1988). The successful fitting of the mixture data with the preferred model function is necessary for supporting dose addition, as is the CPM fitting well the component data, but those steps are not sufficient to confirm consistency with dose addition.
Mixture risk assessment is often hampered by the lack of dose–response information on the mixture being assessed, forcing reliance on component formulas such as dose addition. We present a four-step approach for evaluating chemical mixture data for consistency with dose addition for use in supporting a component based mixture risk assessment. Following the concepts in the U.S. EPA mixture risk guidance (U.S. EPA, 2000a, U.S. EPA, 2000b), toxicological interaction for a defined mixture (all components known) is departure from a clearly articulated definition of component additivity. For the common approach of dose additivity, the EPA guidance identifies three desirable characteristics, foremost of which is that the component chemicals are toxicologically similar. The other two characteristics are empirical: the mixture components have toxic potencies that are fixed proportions of each other (throughout the dose range of interest), and the mixture dose term in the dose additive prediction formula, which we call the combined prediction model (CPM), can be represented by a linear combination of the component doses. A consequent property of the proportional toxic potencies is that the component chemicals must share a common dose–response model, where only the dose coefficients depend on the chemical components. A further consequence is that the mixture data must be described by the same mathematical function (“mixture model”) as the components, but with a distinct coefficient for the total mixture dose. The mixture response is predicted from the component dose–response curves by using the dose additive CPM and the prediction is then compared with the observed mixture results. The four steps are to evaluate: (1) toxic proportionality by determining how well the CPM matches the single chemical models regarding mean and variance; (2) fit of the mixture model to the mixture data; (3) agreement between the mixture data and the CPM prediction; and (4) consistency between the CPM and the mixture model. Because there are four evaluations instead of one, some involving many parameters or dose groups, there are more opportunities to reject statistical hypotheses about dose addition, thus statistical adjustment for multiple comparisons is necessary. These four steps contribute different pieces of information about the consistency of the component and mixture data with the two empirical characteristics of dose additivity. We examine this four-step approach in how it can show empirical support for dose addition as a predictor for an untested mixture in a screening level risk assessment. The decision whether to apply dose addition should be based on all four of those evidentiary pieces as well as toxicological understanding of these chemicals and should include interpretations of the numerical and toxicological issues that arise during the evaluation. This approach is demonstrated with neurotoxicity data on carbamate mixtures.
Characterization of Detonation Nanodiamonds for Biocompatibility
2012, Ultrananocrystalline Diamond: Synthesis, Properties and Applications: Second Edition
Unexpected tumour findings in lifetime rodent bioassay studies - What to do?
2002, Toxicology Letters
Currently, the majority of substances tested in lifetime bioassays in rodents are not mutagenic and, therefore, at the most weakly carcinogenic, generally by epigenetic mechanisms. It thus appears obvious that only marginal increases of tumour incidences can be expected in lifetime bioassays and that, therefore, every aspect of a potential carcinogenic effect must be thoroughly evaluated. This paper describes a series of key factors, which should be looked at in order to exclude that the lifetime bioassay in question is flawed for design, technical or qualification reasons. It also provides some hints whether there is indeed a real effect and not just a variation of the spontaneous tumour incidences. Tumour findings must be seen in the context of the animal model, the pharmcokinetics and pharmcodynamics of the test substance, as well as any other observation in the present or other studies with the test substance, including non-tumour findings and—in particular—potential precursor lesions and effects on feed intake and survival. The possibility that the observed carcinogenic effects may be species-specific and not relevant for man is discussed. It is also important to check what findings are reported with similar substances or substances with the same pharmacological effect. Data from additional investigations on material of the same study and/or mechanistic studies are often needed to support the final risk assessment.
Interspecies extrapolation in safety evaluation of human medicines in The Netherlands (1990-1992): Practical considerations
1994, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
Doses used in animal toxicity studies can be extrapolated to therapeutic doses in man on the basis of body weight equivalence, metabolism equivalence, or toxicokinetics. The validity of extrapolation rules is a matter of debate. However, extrapolation on the basis of toxicokinetics is often preferred for human medicines, provided that adequate data are available. In registration dossiers on human medicines, often insufficient data are available to extrapolate on toxicokinetics only. This prompted us to study whether extrapolation on the basis of body weight equivalents or metabolism equivalents resembles the toxicokinetic way of extrapolation best. A survey was made of new chemical entities that have been applied for registration to the Medicines Evaluation Board in The Netherlands (College ter Beoordeling van Geneesmiddelen) between 1990 and 1992. In the majority of cases, larger margins of safety were achieved by extrapolation on the basis of body weight equivalents as compared to toxicokinetic data. Extrapolation on the basis of metabolism equivalents resembled toxicokinetic extrapolation factors better. The method of extrapolation using metabolism equivalents was rarely encountered in the registration dossiers on human medicines submitted to the Board.
Extrapolation of animal toxicity to humans: Interspecies comparisons in drug development
1990, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
Different methods for converting the dose-related toxicity of drugs from animals to humans are reviewed. Each method is analyzed with respect to its utility and limitations. Linear extrapolations from animals to humans based on body weight equivalence are shown to be inaccurate unless species-specific conversion factors are used. Extrapolations based on surface area equivalence are more accurate, do not require conversion factors, and may be used when pharmacokinetic data are not available. Ultimately, interspecies conversions are most reliable when pharmacokinetic data are available, assuming that toxic responses are comparable among species for similar blood levels. Two pharmacokinetic-based approaches may be used: direct use of plasma concentration or area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models.
Introduction and General Aspects of Risk Assessment
2018, Issues in Toxicology

View all citing articles on Scopus

¹: Present address: Versar, Inc., 6621 Electronic Drive, Springfield, VA 22151.

View full text

Review of interspecies risk comparisons

Abstract

Fundam. Appl. Toxicol.

Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.

Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.

Scaling: An attempt to find a common denominator

Trans-species and trans-tissue extrapolation of carcinogenicity assays

Basic Life Sci.

Carcinogenic risk assessment—The consequences of believing models

Basic. Life Sci.

Uncertainties in interspecies extrapolations of carcinogenicity

Environ. Health Perspect.

Interspecies comparison of carcinogenic potency

J. Toxicol. Environ. Health

Approaches to Carcinogenic, Mutagenic and Teratogenic Risk Assessment

Bayes methods for combining the results of cancer studies in humans and other species

J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.

Extrapolation of carcinogenic risk from animal experiments to man

Environ. Health Perspect.

Quantitative comparison of toxicity of anticancer agents in mouse, rat, hamster, dog, monkey, and man

Cancer Chemother. Rep.

Extrapolation from experimental systems to man: A review of the problems and the possibilities

Relative potency of chemical carcinogens in rodents

Risk Anal.

A carcinogenic potency data-base of the standardized results of animal bioassays

Environ. Health Perspect.

Biological effects of protracted low dose radiation exposure of man and animals

Analytical approaches to and interpretations of data on time, rate and cause of death of mice exposed to external gamma irradiation

Animal experimentation and its relevance to man

Environ. Health Perspect.