SEARCH · PubMed Health
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The roles played by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) and its advisory committee, the ECVAM Scientific Advisory Committee (ESAC), in the evolution of alternative methods are described. Particular emphasis is given to the process by which ECVAM and the ESAC assess the scientific validities of alternative methods, and, in appropriate cases, initiate the progression of scientifically validated methods toward regulatory acceptance.
The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) has sponsored a large international prevalidation and validation study of three embryotoxicity tests, involving embryonic stem cells, limb bud micromass cultures, and post-implantation whole-embryo cultures. The main objective of the study was to assess the performance of these in vitro tests in discriminating between non-embryotoxic, weakly embryotoxic and strongly embryotoxic compounds. An initial part of the study was to select 20 test substances for the formal validation trial, conducted under blind conditions. A database of in vivo and in vitro developmental toxicity test results was complied on 310 chemicals that had been used in previous validation studies, or suggested for such use, or that had good quality "segment II"-type in vivo data, or for which there were human data. From this database, a shortlist of about 30 candidates was constructed. Because the ECVAM study would not include metabolic activation, chemicals known to require activation for their developmental effects were excluded as candidates, although some known stable metabolites were included. Attempts were made: to include substances of diverse mechanism; to avoid overemphasis on pharmaceuticals; to avoid biologically inert substances as non-embryotoxicants; and to make the list different from those used previously. The candidates were of three categories: Class 3, strongly embryotoxic, was defined as developmentally toxic in all species tested, inducing multiple developmental effects, and with a high A/D ratio. Class 1, non-embryotoxic, was defined as not developmentally toxic at maternally toxic exposures, but which may show some minor embryo/fetal toxicity, which cannot be separated from maternal toxicity. Class 2, weakly embryotoxic, were chemicals of intermediate activity. From this candidate list, chemicals of known receptor (androgen, oestrogen, glucocorticoid, aryl hydrocarbon) mechanisms were excluded, on the basis that simple tests for such activity are already available. In addition, chemicals not freely available were excluded, and an emphasis on human data was applied. The final list of 20 chemicals was: Class 3--6-aminonicotinamide, 5-bromo- 2'-deoxyuridine, hydroxyurea, methylmercury chloride, methotrexate, all-trans-retinoic acid; Class 2--boric acid, dimethadione, lithium chloride, methoxyacetic acid, valproic acid (VPA), 2-propyl-4-pentynoic acid (4-yn-VPA), salicylic acid sodium salt; and Class 1--acrylamide, D-(+)-camphor, dimethyl phthalate, diphenhydramine hydrochloride, 2-ethyl-4- methylpentanoic acid (isobutyl-ethyl-VPA), Penicillin G sodium salt, saccharin sodium hydrate.
Over the last decade, national authorities in the USA and Europe have launched initiatives to validate new and improved toxicological test methods. In the USA, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) and its supporting National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) were established by the Federal Government to work with test developers and Federal agencies to facilitate the validation, review, and adoption of new scientifically sound test methods, including alternatives that can refine, reduce, and replace animal use. In Europe, the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) was established to conduct validation studies on alternative test methods. Despite differences in organisational structure and processes, both organisations seek to achieve the adoption and use of alternative test methods. Accordingly, both have adopted similar validation and regulatory acceptance criteria. Collaborations and processes have also evolved to facilitate the international adoption of new test methods recommended by ECVAM and ICCVAM. These collaborations involve the sharing of expertise and data for test-method workshops and independent scientific peer reviews, and the adoption of processes to expedite the consideration of test methods already reviewed by the other organisation. More recently, NICEATM and ECVAM initiated a joint international validation study on in vitro methods for assessing acute systemic toxicity. These collaborations are expected to contribute to accelerated international adoption of harmonised new test methods that will support improved public health and provide for reduced and more-humane use of laboratory animals.
The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) Skin Irritation Task Force was established in 1996, to review the status of the development and validation of alternative tests for skin irritation and corrosion, and to identify appropriate non-animal tests for predicting human skin irritation that were sufficiently well-developed to be prevalidated and validated by ECVAM. The EpiDerm method, based on a reconstituted human skin model, was proposed as being sufficiently well advanced to enter a prevalidation (PV) study. Based on a review of test protocols, prediction models (PMs), and data submitted by test developers on ten specified chemicals, with 20% sodium lauryl sulphate as a reference standard, the task force recommended the inclusion of four other tests: EPISKIN and PREDISKIN, based on reconstituted human epidermis or on human skin; the non-perfused pig-ear test, based on pig skin; and the skin integrity function test (SIFT), with ex vivo mouse skin. The prevalidation study on these methods was funded by ECVAM, and took place during 1999-2000. The outcome of the PV study was that none of the methods was ready to enter a formal validation study, and that the protocols and PMs of the methods had to be improved in order to increase their predictive abilities. Improved protocols and PMs for the EpiDerm and EPISKIN methods, the pig ear test, and the SIFT were presented at an extended Task Force meeting held in May 2001. It was agreed that, in the short term, the performance of the revised and harmonised EpiDerm and EPISKIN methods, as well as the modified SIFT, should be evaluated in a further study with a new set of 20 test chemicals. In addition, it was decided that the SIFT and the pig ear test would be compared to see if common endpoints (transepidermal water loss, methyl green-pyronine stain) could be identified.
The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) was established by the European Commission in 1991, to co-ordinate the validation of alternative methods at the European Union level, to establish a database on alternative methods, and to promote dialogue among all the interested parties, in order to secure the international recognition and acceptance of validated alternative test methods. All ECVAM activities, including workshops, task forces, in-house laboratory studies, and contracted external pre-validation and validation studies, involve international co-operation. Of particular importance has been the role played by ECVAM, notably in partnership with ZEBET, in establishing the principles of test development, validation and acceptance, defining the practical procedures necessary to optimise the progress of new tests toward acceptance, and in successfully validating the 3T3 NRU PT test for phototoxic potential. It is vital that international co-operation goes beyond mere discussion and leads to definite collaborative projects, which lead, in turn, to genuine achievements.
Under the current chemicals legislation, the regulatory use of structure-activity relationships (SARs) and quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs), collectively referred to as (Q)SARs, for the assessment of chemicals is limited, partly due to concerns about the extent to which (Q)SAR estimates can be relied upon. On 29 October 2003, the European Commission adopted a legislative proposal that foresees the introduction of a new regulatory system for chemicals called REACH (Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemicals), which will impose equivalent information requirements on both new and existing chemicals. For reasons of practicality, cost-effectiveness and animal welfare, it is envisaged that (Q)SARs will play an important role in the assessment of some 30,000 existing chemicals for which further information may be required under the REACH system. It will therefore be essential that the (Q)SAR models used will produce reliable estimates. To overcome the barriers in the acceptance of (Q)SARs for regulatory purposes, it is widely acknowledged that there needs to be international agreement on the principles of (Q)SAR validation, and that the process of (Q)SAR validation should be managed by independent organisations, with a view to providing independent advice to the regulators who make decisions on the acceptability of (Q)SARs. The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), which is part of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC), has a well-established role in providing independent scientific and technical advice to European policy makers. This paper describes progress made at an international level regarding the principles of validation, and explains the role of ECVAM regarding the practical validation of (Q)SARs.
From 1996 to 2000, ZEBET (Centre for Documentation and Evaluation of Alternative Methods to Animal Experiments at the BgVV, Berlin, Germany) coordinated the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) prevalidation and validation study on three embryotoxicity tests: a) a test employing embryonic stem cell lines (EST); b) the micromass (MM) test; and c) the postimplantation rat whole-embryo culture assay (WEC test). The main objectives of the study were to assess the performance of these three in vitro tests in discriminating between non- embryotoxic, weakly embryotoxic and strongly embryotoxic compounds. Phase I of the study (1997) was designed as a prevalidation phase, for test protocol optimisation, and for the establishment of a comprehensive database of in vivo and in vitro data on embryotoxic compounds. Phase II (1998-2000) involved a formal validation trial, conducted under blind conditions on 20 test compounds selected from the database, which were coded and distributed to the participating laboratories. In the preliminary phase of the validation study, six chemicals out of the 20, which showed embryotoxic potential, were tested. These results were used to define new biostatistically based prediction models (PMs) for the MM and WEC tests, and to evaluate those developed previously for the EST. As a next step, the PMs were evaluated by using the results for the remaining 14 chemicals of the definitive phase of the validation study. The three in vitro embryotoxicity tests proved to be applicable to testing a diverse group of chemicals with different embryotoxic potentials (non-embryotoxic, weakly embryotoxic, and strongly embryotoxic). The reproducibility of the three in vitro embryotoxicity tests were acceptable according to the acceptance criteria defined by the Management Team. The concordances between the embryotoxic potentials derived from the in vitro data and from the in vivo data were good for the EST and the WEC (PM2) test, and sufficient for the MM test and the WEC (PM1) tests according to the performance criteria defined by the Management Team before the formal validation study. When applying the PM of the EST to the in vitro data obtained in the definitive phase of the formal validation study, chemicals were classified correctly in 78% of the experiments. For the MM and the WEC tests, the PMs provided 70% and 80% (PM2) correct classifications, respectively. And, very importantly, an excellent predictivity (100%, except for PM1 of the WEC test, with 79%, considered as good) was obtained with strong embryotoxic chemicals in each of the three in vitro tests.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
In May, 2003, the European Commission published detailed proposals relating to its 2001 White Paper--Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy. The White Paper described a new registration system called the REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system, for both new and existing chemicals. Subsequently, these detailed proposals were available for an eight-week consultation period for stakeholders to voice their views and concerns. In this paper, we describe our reactions to the Commissions more-detailed proposals. These include the creation of a European Chemicals Agency to implement the REACH system in conjunction with Competent Authorities (CAs) in Member States and the Commission itself. Unfortunately, many of our concerns and suggestions, previously voiced and shared with several other key stakeholders, remain unanswered, but are as relevant as when the White Paper was published. In particular, we are concerned about the lack of a clear and coherent strategy. There is no guidance for registrants on intelligent testing to maximise the use of non-animal approaches to safety testing, based on a combination of factors for estimating exposure levels, rather than mainly on production volumes. We are also concerned about the absence of a clear programme for the development, improvement and validation of new alternative methods, in conjunction with the Commissions own unit, the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, as well as other organisations with relevant expertise and experience, including FRAME. Finally, we explain why such measures should be introduced, together with clearer guidelines for the respective roles of the Agency, the CAs and the Commission in implementing and harmonising the REACH system at the European Union and Member State levels. A series of recommendations are made, to improve the situation and to improve the risk assessment process.
In May, 2003, the European Commission published detailed proposals relating to its 2001 White Paper - Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy. The White Paper described a new registration system called the REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system, for both new and existing chemicals. Subsequently, these detailed proposals were available for an eight-week consultation period for stakeholders to voice their views and concerns. In this paper, we describe our reactions to the Commission's more-detailed proposals. These include the creation of a European Chemicals Agency to implement the REACH system in conjunction with Competent Authorities (CAs) in Member States and the Commission itself. Unfortunately, many of our concerns and suggestions, previously voiced and shared with several other key stakeholders, remain unanswered, but are as relevant as when the White Paper was published. In particular, we are concerned about the lack of a clear and coherent strategy. There is no guidance for registrants on intelligent testing to maximise the use of non-animal approaches to safety testing, based on a combination of factors for estimating exposure levels, rather than mainly on production volumes. We are also concerned about the absence of a clear programme for the development, improvement and validation of new alternative methods, in conjunction with the Commission's own unit, the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, as well as other organisations with relevant expertise and experience, including FRAME. Finally, we explain why such measures should be introduced, together with clearer guidelines for the respective roles of the Agency, the CAs and the Commission in implementing and harmonising the REACH system at the European Union and Member State levels. A series of recommendations are made, to improve the situation and to improve the risk assessment process.
The workshop on validation of alternative methods for the potency testing of vaccines was organised by ECVAM (European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods) and AGAATI (Advisory Group on Alternatives to Animal Testing in Immunobiologicals), and it was held in Angera, Italy, on 14-16 November 1997 under the co-chairmanship of Coenraad Hendriksen (RIVM, Bilthoven, The Netherlands) and Jean-Marc Spieser (EDQM, Strasbourg, France). The 17 participants, all experts in vaccine quality control and/or validation procedures, came from international regulatory bodies and organisations, national control laboratories and vaccine manufacturers. The aim of the workshop was to discuss, in an informal atmosphere, the complex issue of guidelines for the validation of alternative methods to potency testing of vaccines in laboratory animals, in particular: a) to review existing guidelines for validation; b) to discuss specific guidelines for the validation of alternative methods to the potency testing of vaccines and to agree on strategies for the preparation of guidelines; and c) to discuss and make recommendations for the implementation of validated alternative methods for regulatory purposes. The outcome of the discussions and the recommendations will be published in the ECVAM workshop series in ATLA in late 1998.
According to the new chemicals policy of the European Union (EU), most chemicals, i.e. the 20,000 chemicals manufactured or imported at 1-10 tons annually, should be tested primarily by using in vitro methods. Also, for other chemicals, the use of in vitro methods is encouraged in the testing strategies given in the draft EU legislation. However, the validation and international acceptance of in vitro tests has been slow. Only recently has the OECD approved four new in vitro test methods, validated by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. An analysis of ten randomly selected risk assessment reports of the EU Existing Chemicals Risk Assessment Programme showed that in vitro studies, for example, on cytotoxicity to different cell cultures, cell transformation, metabolism and skin penetration (a total of 115 studies) were used for the assessments. Key metabolic pathways and mechanisms of toxicity have been elucidated, for some chemicals, by using in vitro methods. On the other hand, the results of in vitro studies were regarded as secondary or unreliable in some cases. For several toxic endpoints, in vitro methods will probably serve as screening tools and for mechanistic studies, while target organ toxicity or physiologically regulated adverse effects caused by long-term exposure are difficult to observe without the use of animal models.
Revolutions in thinking and practice are essential in regulatory toxicology if genuine protection of human beings and the environment is truly to be improved. New test development is the key: Tests should have greater relevance than the current animal procedures based on (1) a mechanistic understanding of the basis of the test method itself and of the toxic phenomenon of concern, (2) taking advantage of new developments in cell and molecular biology and computer systems of various kinds, and (3) a clear understanding of the value of good prediction models. In the not-too-distant future, current research in genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics should provide opportunities for the development of valuable new tests. An inescapable requirement of tests intended to be used for regulatory purposes is validation (i.e., an independent assessment of relevance and reliability for stated purposes according to internationally agreed-upon criteria). However, there is no standard validation scheme; a case-by-case approach is essential. It is important to take advantage of experience, which reveals that prevalidation makes formal validation studies faster, less expensive, and more likely to succeed, and that the procedures for independent assessment used by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) and the Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) are effective in practice.
Currently, the in vivo biopotency of commercial preparations containing the glycoprotein follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) is declared on the basis of the ovarian weight augmentation assay as described in the British, European and United States Pharmacopoeias. Human FSH contains approximately 35% (W/W) carbohydrate which introduces considerable microheterogeneity (isohormones). Analysis of isohormones of recombinant FSH has revealed a relation between the isoelectric point (pl) and the in vivo bioactivity. Isohormones in the range of pl 3.5 are 100- to 200-fold more potent in the in vivo bioassay than isohormones with a pl of 5.5-6.0. These data suggest that quantification of the isohormone profile should enable us to predict the in vivo bioactivity. Thus, isohormones of recFSH samples were separated by isoelectric focusing (IEF), visualized by Coomassie brilliant blue G250 staining and quantified using densitometry. The data from 21 samples were compared with the in vivo bioassay data using partial least square (PLS) regression. A close correlation was found using a model with 2 PLS factors (correlation coefficient (r)=0.95, standard error of estimation SD 1. 02 lU/microg protein). In addition, ordinary least square (OLS) regression revealed a similar correlation between the fraction of isohormones between pl 3.9 and 4.9 and the in vivo bioactivity: r=0. 95, sd=1.4 lU/microg protein. Thus, an increase in the acidic isohormone fraction results in an increase in the in vivo bioactivity. The reverse is true for the amount of isohormones focusing between pl 5.1 and 5.7. An increase of this fraction results in a decrease of the in vivo bioactivity. These data are consistent with what might be expected from the in vivo bioassay data of the isohormones. The OLS model was subsequently validated using the guidelines of the European Centre for Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) using 10 samples of recFSH that had not been used for the calibration. The relative standard deviation (RSD) of the mean difference between experimental and predicted in vivo bioactivity was approximately 6%. A Student's t-test performed on the experimental and predicted bioactivity data indicated that the predicted bioactivities do not deviate significantly from the experimental in vivo bioactivity data (P<0.05). These results demonstrate that the IEF scanning data can be used to predict the in vivo bioactivity with reasonable accuracy. This may be the first step towards replacing the in vivo bioassay for highly purified FSH by a physicochemical alternative. In general, quantitative charge-based separation methods like chromatofocusing, high performance capillary electrophoresis and ion exchange chromatography may also be considered as alternatives. Finally, quantitative charge profiling may prove to be as important for the estimation of the potency of other therapeutic glycoproteins like luteinizing hormone (LH), chorionic gonadotropin (CG), thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and erythropoietin (EPO).
Several alternative in vitro methods for identifying skin irritants have been developed in the last 10 years, the most promising of which use either reconstituted human skin models or animal (e.g. pig or mouse) skin organ cultures. In 1998, the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) commissioned a pre-validation study of five methods. Two reconstituted human skin methods (Epiderm and EPISKIN) and one animal skin model (the mouse skin integrity function test, SIFT) performed well in Phases I and II of the study (intralaboratory reproducibility and protocol transfer) and proceeded to Phase III which assessed reproducibility and predictive ability in three independent laboratories using a set of 20 coded test chemicals (10 irritants and 10 non irritants). Intralaboratory reproducibility was again acceptable for all three methods but inter-laboratory reproducibility was acceptable only for EPISKIN. The predictive ability of all three methods was also inadequate. Following refinements to the protocols of Epiderm and EPISKIN and changes to the statistical analysis of SIFT, the predictive ability was improved. In 2003, ECVAM concluded that they could proceed to a full validation study. This will be conducted in two phases and is scheduled for completion early in 2005.