Search

Assuming that temporal fluctuations in physiological parameters (e.g. haematology, biochemistry) in individual healthy non-exposed animals are non-adverse, the minimal magnitude of the Critical Effect Size (CES) for a number of continuous parameters of toxicity studies was derived. A total of 36 studies (19 pharmaceutical preclinical studies in dogs and 17 chemical risk assessment studies in rats) were analysed to determine within-animal variation in their control groups. Minimal CES-values were derived for each group of studies, differentiating where necessary between strains and sexes, using the 2.5 percentile (lower limit) and/or 97.5 percentile (upper limit) of the distribution of the within-animal variation around the mean of each parameter. We concluded that minimal CES-values for continuous clinical chemistry and haematology parameters should be established separately per species, strain, sex and study duration investigated. Grouping of minimal CES-values, leading to more or less "general" values, seems possible for those parameters that are subject to tight homeostatic control and consequently show little within-animal variation. Nearly a quarter of the proposed CES-values is ≤5%, nearly a quarter range from 6% to 10%, a quarter is 15% or 20%, and nearly 30% of the proposed values is ≥20% of the mean of the control animals. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Due to a lack of route-specific toxicity data, the health risks resulting from occupational exposure are frequently assessed by route-to-route (RtR) extrapolation based on oral toxicity data. Insight into the conditions for and the uncertainties connected with the application of RtR extrapolation has not been clearly described in a systematic manner. In our opinion, for a reliable occupational health risk assessment, it is necessary to have insight into the accuracy of the routinely applied RtR extrapolation and, if possible, to give a (semi-)quantitative estimate of the possible error introduced. Therefore, experimentally established no-observed-adverse-effect-levels for inhalation studies were compared to no-adverse-effect-levels predicted from oral toxicity studies by RtR extrapolation. From our database analysis it can be concluded that the widely used RtR extrapolation methodology based on correction for differences in (estimates of) absorption is not generally reliable and certainly not valid for substances inducing local effects. More experimental data are required (from unpublished data or new experiments) to get insight into the reliability of RtR extrapolation and the possibility to derive an assessment factor to account for the uncertainties. Moreover, validated screening methods to predict/exclude the occurrence of local effects after repeated exposure are warranted. Especially, in cases where chemical exposure by inhalation or skin contact cannot be excluded route-specific toxicity studies should be considered to prevent from inadequate estimates of human health risks. © 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.