Evolution of chemical-specific adjustment factors (CSAF) based on recent international experience; increasing utility and facilitating regulatory acceptance. (21st October 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bhat, Virunya S.; Meek, M.E. (Bette); Valcke, Mathieu; English, Caroline; Boobis, Alan; Brown, Richard
• Is Part Of: Critical reviews in toxicology. Volume 47:Number 9(2017)
• Page Start: 733
• Page End: 753
• Publication Date: 2017-10-21
• Subjects: Chemical-specific adjustment factor -- toxicokinetics -- toxicodynamics -- interspecies extrapolation -- human variability -- physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling -- uncertainty factor; Toxicology -- Periodicals; Poisons -- Physiological effect -- Periodicals; Toxicology -- Periodicals; 615.9
• DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2017.1303818
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1040-8444

Abstract

Abstract: 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 default or categorically-based uncertainty factors. The present review summarizes the state-of-the-science since the introduction of the World Health Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety (WHO/IPCS) guidance on chemical-specific adjustment factors (CSAF) in 2005 and the availability of recent applicable guidance including the WHO/IPCS guidance on physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling in 2010 as well as the U.S. EPA guidance on data-derived extrapolation factors in 2014. A summary of lessons learned from an analysis of more than 100 case studies from global regulators or published literature illustrates the utility and evolution of CSAF in regulatory decisions. Challenges in CSAF development related to the adequacy of, or confidence in, the supporting data, including verification or validation of PBPK models. The analysis also identified issues related to adequacy of CSAF documentation, such as inconsistent terminology and often limited and/or inconsistent reporting, of both supporting data and/or risk assessment context. Based on this analysis, recommendations for standardized terminology, documentation and relevant interdisciplinary research and engagement are included to facilitate the continuing evolution of CSAF development and guidance.