Challenges and opportunities for overcoming dog use in agrochemical evaluation and registration
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Progress in developing new tools, assays, and approaches to assess human hazard and health risk provides an opportunity to re-evaluate the necessity of dog studies for the safety evaluation of agrochemicals. A workshop was held where participants discussed the strengths and limitations of past use of dogs for pesticide evaluations and registrations. Opportunities were identified to support alternative approaches to answer human safety questions without performing the required 90-day dog study. Development of a decision tree for determining when the dog study might not be necessary to inform pesticide safety and risk assessment was proposed. Such a process will require global regulatory authority participation to lead to its acceptance. The identification of unique effects in dogs that are not identified in rodents will need further evaluation and determination of their relevance to humans. The establishment of in vitro and in silico approaches that can provide critical data on relative species sensitivity and human relevance will be an important tool to advance the decision process. Promising novel tools including in vitro comparative metabolism studies, in silico models, and high-throughput assays able to identify metabolites and mechanisms of action leading to development of adverse outcome pathways will need further development. To replace or eliminate the 90-day dog study, a collaborative, multidisciplinary, international effort that transcends organizations and regulatory agencies will be needed in order to develop guidance on when the study would not be necessary for human safety and risk assessment.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is appropriately cited (CC-BY). Copyright on any article in ALTEX is retained by the author(s).
Baudy, A. R., Otieno, M. A., Hewitt, P. et al. (2020). Liver microphysiological systems development guidelines for safety risk assessment in the pharmaceutical industry. Lab Chip 20, 215-225. doi:10.1039/c9lc00768g
Bokkers, B. and Slob, W. (2007). Deriving a data-based interspecies assessment factor using the NOAEL and benchmark dose approach. Crit Rev Toxicol 37, 355-373. doi:10.1080/10408440701249224
Craig, E., Lowe, K., Akerman, G. et al. (2019). Reducing the need for animal testing while increasing efficiency in a pesticide regulatory setting: Lessons from the EPA office of pesticide programs’ hazard and science policy council. Reg Tox Pharm 108, 104481. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.104481
Dellarco, V. L., Rowland, J. and May, B. (2010). A retrospective analysis of toxicity studies in dogs and impact on the chronic reference dose for conventional pesticide chemicals. Crit Rev Toxicol 40, 16-23. doi:10.3109/10408440903401529
EC – European Commission (2013). Commission Regulation (EU) No 283/2013 of 1 March 2013: Setting out the data requirements for active substances, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/all/?uri=celex:32013R0283
Harrer, S., Pratik, S., Bhavna, A. et al. (2019). Artificial intelligence for clinical trial design. Trends Pharm Sci 40, 577-591. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2019.05.005
Hasiwa, N., Bailey, J., Clausing, P. et al. (2011). Critical evaluation of the use of dogs in biomedical research and testing in Europe. ALTEX 28, 326-340. doi:10.14573/altex.2011.4.326
Hilton, G. M., Adcock, C., Akerman, G. et al. (2022). Rethinking chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity assessment for agrochemicals project (ReCAAP): A reporting framework to support a weight of evidence safety assessment without long-term rodent bioassays. Reg Tox Pharm 131, 105160. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105160
Jang, K., Otieno, M. A., Ronxhi, J. et al. (2019). Reproducing human and cross-species drug toxicities using a liver-chip. Sci Transl Med 11, eaax5516. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aax5516
Kleiber, M (1932). Body size and metabolism. Hilgardia 6, 315-353. doi:10.3733/hilg.v06n11p315
Kleiber, M. (1947). Body size and metabolic rate. Physiol Rev 27, 511-541. doi:10.1152/physrev.1947.27.4.511
Kleiber, M. (1961). The Fire of Life: An Introduction to Animal Energetics. New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Kobel, W., Fegert, I., Billington, R. et al. (2010). A 1-year toxicity study in dogs is no longer a scientifically justifiable core data requirement for the safety assessment of pesticides. Crit Rev Toxicol 40, 1-15. doi:10.3109/10408440903300098
Kobel, W., Fegert, I., Billington, R. et al. (2014). Relevance of the 1-year dog study in assessing human health risks for registration of pesticides. An update to include pesticides registered in Japan. Crit Rev Toxicol 44, 842-848. doi:10.3109/10408444.2014.936550
Linke, B., Mohr, S., Ramsingh, D. et al. (2017). A retrospective analysis of the added value of 1-year dog studies in pesticide human health risk assessments. Crit Rev Toxicol 47, 581-591. doi:10.1080/10408444.2017.1290044
Luijten, M., Corvi, R., Mehta, J. et al. (2020). A comprehensive view on mechanistic approaches for cancer risk assessment of non-genotoxic agrochemicals. Reg Tox Pharm 118, 104789. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2020.104789
Monticello, T. M., Jones, T. W., Dambach, D. M. et al. (2017). Current nonclinical testing paradigm enables safe entry to first-in-human clinical trials: The IQ consortium nonclinical to clinical translational database. Tox Appl Pharm 334, 100-109. doi:10.1016/j.taap.2017.09.006
NASEM – National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2020). Necessity, Use, and Care of Laboratory Dogs at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Washington, DC, USA: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/25772
Sauve-Ciencewicki, K. P. D., McDonald, J., Ramanarayanan, T. et al. (2019). A simple problem formulation framework to create the right solution to the right problem. Reg Tox Pharm 101, 187-193. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.11.015
Spielmann, H. and Gerbracht, U. (2001). The use of dogs as second species in regulatory testing of pesticides. Part II. Subacute, subchronic and chronic studies in the dog. Arch Toxicol 75, 1-21. doi:10.1007/s002040000195
Turner, M. (2011). Call to curb lab tests on dogs. Nature 474, 551. doi:10.1038/474551a
USEPA – U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Guiding Principles for Data Requirements. Office of Pesticide Programs, USEPA, Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/guiding-principles-data-requirements
USEPA (2016). Guidance for waiving acute dermal toxicity tests for pesticide formulations & supporting retrospective analysis. Office of Pesticide Programs, USEPA, Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-11/documents/acute-dermal-toxicity-pesticide-formulations_0.pdf
USEPA (2018). Animal Toxicity Studies: Effects and Endpoints. https://github.com/usepa/comptox-toxrefdb
USEPA (2020a). Guidance for waiving acute dermal toxicity tests for pesticide technical chemicals and supporting retrospective analysis. Office of Pesticide Programs, USEPA, Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-01/documents/guidance-for-waiving-acute-dermal-toxicity.pdf
USEPA (2020b). Final guidance for waiving sub-acute avian dietary tests for pesticide registration and supporting retrospective analysis. Office of Pesticide Programs, USEPA, Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-02/documents/final-waiver-guidance-avian-sub-acute-dietary.pdf
USEPA (2021). New approach methods workplan. Office of Research Development, USEPA, Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-11/nams-work-plan_11_15_21_508-tagged.pdf
US FDA – U. S. Food and Drug Administration (2010). M3(R2) Nonclinical safety studies for the conduct of human clinical trials and marketing authorization for pharmaceuticals. https://bit.ly/44rtcp0
US Federal Register (2022). Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Part 158 – Data requirements for pesticides. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-158#158.500
Zurdo, J. (2013). Developability assessment as an early de-risking tool for biopharmaceutical development. Pharm Bioprocessing 1, 29-50. https://www.openaccessjournals.com/articles/developability-assessment-as-an-early-derisking-tool-for-biopharmaceutical-development.pdf
Zurlo, J., Bayne, K. A., Brown, D. C. et al. (2011). Critical evaluation of the use of dogs in biomedical research and testing. ALTEX 28, 355-359. doi:10.14573/altex.2011.4.355