This Article Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lewis, R. W. Articles by Carpanini, F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lewis, R. W. Articles by Carpanini, F. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Recognition of Adverse and Nonadverse Effects in Toxicity Studies

Syngenta CTL, Health Assessment and Environmental Safety, Alderley Park, Cheshire UK SK10 4TJ

Richard Billington

Dow AgroScience, Oxford UK

Eric Debryune

Aventis Crop Protection, Sophia Antipolis, France

Armin Gamer

BASFAG, Ludwigshaven, Germany

B. Lang

Syngenta AG, Basel, Switzerland

Francis Carpanini

ECETOC, Brussels, Belgium

One of the most important quantitative outputs from toxicity studies is identification of the highest exposure level (dose or concentration) that does not cause treatment related effects that could be considered relevant to human health risk assessment. A review of regulatory and other scientifi c literature and of current practices has revealed a lack of consistency in definition and application of frequently used terms such as No Observed Effect Level (NOEL), No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL), adverse effect, biologically significant effect, or toxicologically significant effect. Moreover, no coherent criteria were found that could be used to guide consistent interpretation of toxicity studies, including the recognition and differentiation between adverse and nonadverse effects. This presentation will address these issues identified first by proposing a standard set of definitions for key terms such as NOEL and NOAEL that are frequently used to describe the overall outcome of a toxicity study. Second, a coherent framework is outlined that can assist the toxicologist in arriving at consistent study interpretation. This structured process involves two main steps. In the first, the toxicologist must decide whether differences from control values are treatment related or if they are chance deviations. In the second step, only those differences judged to be effects are further evaluated in order to discriminate between those that are adverse and those that are not. For each step, criteria are described that can be used to make consistent judgments. In differentiating an effect from a chance finding, consideration is given inter alia to dose response, spurious measurements in individual parameters, the precision of the measurement under evaluation, ranges of natural variation and the overall biological plausibility of the observation. In discriminating between the adverse and the non-adverse effect consideration is given to: whether the effect is an adaptive response, whether it is transient, the magnitude of the effect, its association with effects in other related endpoints, whether it is a precursor to a more signifi cant effect, whether it has an effect on the overall function of the organism, whether it is a specific effect on an organ or organ system or secondary to general toxicity or whether the effect is a predictable consequence of the experimental model. In interpreting complex studies it is recognised that a weight of the evidence approach, combining the criteria outlined here to reach an overall judgment, is the optimal way of applying the process. It is believed that the use of such a scheme will help to improve the consistency of study interpretation that is the foundation of hazard and risk assessment.

Key Words: Toxicity • adverse effects • nonadverse effects • NOEL • NOAEL • hazard identification.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. H. McKee Comments on Foster, P., and McIntyre, B. (2002). Endocrine Active Agents: Implications of Adverse and Non-Adverse Changes. Toxicol Pathol 30(1): 59--65 Toxicol Pathol, October 1, 2002; 30(6): 755 - 756. [PDF]