2017
DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2017.1303818
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evolution of chemical-specific adjustment factors (CSAF) based on recent international experience; increasing utility and facilitating regulatory acceptance

Abstract: Brown (2017): Evolution of chemical-specific adjustment factors (CSAF) based on recent international experience; increasing utility and facilitating regulatory acceptance, Critical Reviews in Toxicology, DOI: 10.1080DOI: 10. /10408444.2017 The application of chemical-specific toxicokinetic or toxicodynamic data to address interspecies differences and human variability in the quantification of hazard has potential to reduce uncertainty and better characterize variability compared with the use of traditional def… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
42
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 63 publications
(43 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
1
42
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This large variation in CYP 3A activity may result in marked variations in the metabolic profile of PAs and thus different susceptibilities towards pyrrolizidine alkaloid intoxication (Fu et al 2004). Therefore, human inter-individual and inter-ethnic (Chinese and Caucasian) variation upon PA metabolism may be higher than the default uncertainty factor of 3.16 for interindividual human kinetic differences (IPCS 2005;Bhat et al 2017) that is used to derive health-based guidance values for the risk assessment of compounds with non-genotoxic critical effects, indicating the need for a chemical specific adjustment factor (CSAF) (Bhat et al 2017). For risk assessment of compounds that are both genotoxic and carcinogenic, the default uncertainty factor of 3.16 for inter-individual human kinetic differences is part of the cut-off value of 10,000 for evaluating the margin of exposure (MOE) (EFSA 2005(EFSA , 2012(EFSA , 2015.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This large variation in CYP 3A activity may result in marked variations in the metabolic profile of PAs and thus different susceptibilities towards pyrrolizidine alkaloid intoxication (Fu et al 2004). Therefore, human inter-individual and inter-ethnic (Chinese and Caucasian) variation upon PA metabolism may be higher than the default uncertainty factor of 3.16 for interindividual human kinetic differences (IPCS 2005;Bhat et al 2017) that is used to derive health-based guidance values for the risk assessment of compounds with non-genotoxic critical effects, indicating the need for a chemical specific adjustment factor (CSAF) (Bhat et al 2017). For risk assessment of compounds that are both genotoxic and carcinogenic, the default uncertainty factor of 3.16 for inter-individual human kinetic differences is part of the cut-off value of 10,000 for evaluating the margin of exposure (MOE) (EFSA 2005(EFSA , 2012(EFSA , 2015.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chemical-specific in vitro hepatic metabolic clearance data can also be used to refine the extrapolation of toxicological results from animals to humans (Lipscomb et al, 2004). For example, when extrapolating from rat to human, understanding the qualitative and quantitative differences in clearance between species provides the basis for the derivation of chemical-specific adjustment factors as an informed alternative to using the usual default factor of 4 (the kinetics contribution to the value of 10 used for interspecies variability) (Dorne and Renwick, 2005;Bhat et al 2017). Clearance data can also be incorporated into Physiologically Based Kinetic (PBK) models to perform In Vitro In Vivo Extrapolation (IVIVE) to support risk assessment using non-animal in vitro approaches (Bessems et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A WHO chemical risk assessment network is in place to enhance global efforts to assess the risk to human health from exposure to chemicals by developing tools and guidance documents. A participant reported in our survey that the Chemical-specific Adjustment Factor (CSAF) working group, as part of the WHO Chemical Risk Assessment Network, released a manuscript that discusses recent challenges and experiences in gaining regulatory acceptance of chemical-specific adjustment factors and PBK models ( Bhat et al., 2017 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%