4.4 Article

The OSIRIS Weight of Evidence approach: ITS for the endpoints repeated-dose toxicity (Rep Dose ITS)

Journal

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 67, Issue 2, Pages 157-169

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.02.004

Keywords

Integrated Testing Strategy; ITS; Repeated-dose; Risk Assessment; TTC; Non-testing method; OSIRIS; Weighting; Alternative; 3R principle

Funding

  1. European Union [037017]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the FP6 European project OSIRIS, Integrated Testing Strategies (ITSs) for relevant toxicological endpoints were developed to avoid new animal testing and thus to reduce time and costs. The present paper describes the development of an ITS for repeated-dose toxicity called RepDose ITS which evaluates the conditions under which in vivo non-guideline studies are reliable. In a tiered approach three aspects of these non-guideline studies are assessed: the documentation of the study (reliability), the quality of the study design (adequacy) and the scope of examination (validity). The reliability is addressed by the method Knock-out criteria, which consists of four essential criteria for repeated-dose toxicity studies. A second tool, termed QUANTOS (Quality Assessment of Non-guideline Toxicity Studies), evaluates and weights the adequacy of the study by using intra-criterion and intercriteria weighting. Finally, the Coverage approach calculates a probability that the detected Lowest-Observed-Effect-Level (LOEL) is similar to the LOEL of a guideline study dependent on the examined targets and organs of the non-guideline study. If the validity and adequacy of the non-guideline study are insufficient for risk assessment, the ITS proposes to apply category approach or the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) concept, and only as a last resort new animal-testing. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available