4.4 Article

New supporting data to guide the use of evident toxicity in acute oral toxicity studies (OECD TG 420)

Journal

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 146, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2023.105517

Keywords

Acute oral toxicity studies; 3Rs; Evident toxicity; Fixed dose procedure (FDP); Refinement; Regulatory toxicology; OECD TG 420

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There are currently three test guidelines for acute oral toxicity studies, but the subjectivity of one guideline may be hindering its wider use. In order to address this, the NC3Rs and EPAA collaborated to analyze historical data and provide recommendations on the recognition of 'evident toxicity'.
Currently there are three test guidelines (TG) for acute oral toxicity studies of substances or mixtures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). TG 423 and TG 425 use lethality as an endpoint, while TG 420 replaces death with 'evident toxicity', defined as clear signs that exposure to a higher dose would result in death. However, the perceived subjectivity of 'evident toxicity' may be preventing wider use of TG 420. To address this, the UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) and the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) collaborated to provide recommendations on the recognition of 'evident toxicity'. Historical data from acute oral toxicity studies were analysed for clinical signs at the lower dose that could have predicted death at the higher dose. Several signs including ataxia, laboured respiration, and eyes partially closed, alone or in combination, are highly predictive. Others such as lethargy, decreased respiration, and loose faeces have lower but still appreciable positive predictive value (PPV). The data has been used to develop recommendations to promote use of TG 420 and thus reduce the suffering and numbers of animals used in acute oral toxicity studies.

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