Advancing systemic toxicity risk assessment: Evaluation of a NAM-based toolbox approach

For many years, a method that allowed systemic toxicity safety assessments to be conducted without generating new animal test data, seemed out of reach. However, several different research groups and regulatory authorities are beginning to use a variety of in silico, in chemico, and in vitro techniques to inform safety decisions. To manage this transition to animal-free safety assessments responsibly, it is important to ensure that the level of protection offered by a safety assessment based on new approach methodologies (NAMs), is at least as high as that provided by a safety assessment based on traditional animal studies. To this end, we have developed an evaluation strategy to assess both the level of protection and the utility offered by a NAM-based systemic safety "toolbox." The toolbox comprises physiologically based kinetic models to predict internal exposures, and bioactivity NAMs designed to give broad coverage across many different toxicity modes of action. The output of the toolbox is the calculation of a bioactivity:exposure ratio (analogous to a margin of internal exposure), which can be used to inform decision-making. In this work, we have expanded upon an initial pilot study of 10 chemicals with an additional 38 chemicals and 70 consumer exposure scenarios. We found that, for the majority of these (>90%), the NAM-based workflow is protective of human health, enabling us to make animal-free safety decisions for systemic toxicity and preventing unnecessary animal use. We have also identified critical areas for improvement to further increase our confidence in the robustness of the approach.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Toxicological Sciences
Published
2024-12-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfae159
Citations
19
Primary Topic
Animal testing and alternatives
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
12.12
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Advancing systemic toxicity risk assessment: Evaluation of a NAM-based toolbox approach

Katarzyna R. Przybylak, Dawei Tang, Sophie Malcomber, Beate Nicol et al.
19 citations
Toxicological Sciences
Animal testing and alternatives
12.12
article

Advancing systemic toxicity risk assessment: Evaluation of a NAM-based toolbox approach

Katarzyna R. Przybylak, Dawei Tang, Sophie Malcomber, Beate Nicol, Leonardo Contreas, Paul L. Carmichael, A. Middleton, G. Reynolds, S. Cable, Predrag Kukić, Fazila Bunglawala, Matthew Dent, Ans Punt, Maria Teresa Baltazar, Joe Reynolds, Sharon Scott, Jade Houghton
article en
19 citations

Abstract

For many years, a method that allowed systemic toxicity safety assessments to be conducted without generating new animal test data, seemed out of reach. However, several different research groups and regulatory authorities are beginning to use a variety of in silico, in chemico, and in vitro techniques to inform safety decisions. To manage this transition to animal-free safety assessments responsibly, it is important to ensure that the level of protection offered by a safety assessment based on new approach methodologies (NAMs), is at least as high as that provided by a safety assessment based on traditional animal studies. To this end, we have developed an evaluation strategy to assess both the level of protection and the utility offered by a NAM-based systemic safety "toolbox." The toolbox comprises physiologically based kinetic models to predict internal exposures, and bioactivity NAMs designed to give broad coverage across many different toxicity modes of action. The output of the toolbox is the calculation of a bioactivity:exposure ratio (analogous to a margin of internal exposure), which can be used to inform decision-making. In this work, we have expanded upon an initial pilot study of 10 chemicals with an additional 38 chemicals and 70 consumer exposure scenarios. We found that, for the majority of these (>90%), the NAM-based workflow is protective of human health, enabling us to make animal-free safety decisions for systemic toxicity and preventing unnecessary animal use. We have also identified critical areas for improvement to further increase our confidence in the robustness of the approach.

Toxicological SciencesVol. 204(1)
Unilever (United Kingdom) (GB), Vitenparken (NO)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Animal testing and alternatives
12.12
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.