Cargando…

Current practice and recommendations for advancing how human variability and susceptibility are considered in chemical risk assessment

A key element of risk assessment is accounting for the full range of variability in response to environmental exposures. Default dose-response methods typically assume a 10-fold difference in response to chemical exposures between average (healthy) and susceptible humans, despite evidence of wider v...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Varshavsky, Julia R., Rayasam, Swati D. G., Sass, Jennifer B., Axelrad, Daniel A., Cranor, Carl F., Hattis, Dale, Hauser, Russ, Koman, Patricia D., Marquez, Emily C., Morello-Frosch, Rachel, Oksas, Catherine, Patton, Sharyle, Robinson, Joshua F., Sathyanarayana, Sheela, Shepard, Peggy M., Woodruff, Tracey J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9835253/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36635753
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00940-1
_version_ 1784868631679598592
author Varshavsky, Julia R.
Rayasam, Swati D. G.
Sass, Jennifer B.
Axelrad, Daniel A.
Cranor, Carl F.
Hattis, Dale
Hauser, Russ
Koman, Patricia D.
Marquez, Emily C.
Morello-Frosch, Rachel
Oksas, Catherine
Patton, Sharyle
Robinson, Joshua F.
Sathyanarayana, Sheela
Shepard, Peggy M.
Woodruff, Tracey J.
author_facet Varshavsky, Julia R.
Rayasam, Swati D. G.
Sass, Jennifer B.
Axelrad, Daniel A.
Cranor, Carl F.
Hattis, Dale
Hauser, Russ
Koman, Patricia D.
Marquez, Emily C.
Morello-Frosch, Rachel
Oksas, Catherine
Patton, Sharyle
Robinson, Joshua F.
Sathyanarayana, Sheela
Shepard, Peggy M.
Woodruff, Tracey J.
author_sort Varshavsky, Julia R.
collection PubMed
description A key element of risk assessment is accounting for the full range of variability in response to environmental exposures. Default dose-response methods typically assume a 10-fold difference in response to chemical exposures between average (healthy) and susceptible humans, despite evidence of wider variability. Experts and authoritative bodies support using advanced techniques to better account for human variability due to factors such as in utero or early life exposure and exposure to multiple environmental, social, and economic stressors. This review describes: 1) sources of human variability and susceptibility in dose-response assessment, 2) existing US frameworks for addressing response variability in risk assessment; 3) key scientific inadequacies necessitating updated methods; 4) improved approaches and opportunities for better use of science; and 5) specific and quantitative recommendations to address evidence and policy needs. Current default adjustment factors do not sufficiently capture human variability in dose-response and thus are inadequate to protect the entire population. Susceptible groups are not appropriately protected under current regulatory guidelines. Emerging tools and data sources that better account for human variability and susceptibility include probabilistic methods, genetically diverse in vivo and in vitro models, and the use of human data to capture underlying risk and/or assess combined effects from chemical and non-chemical stressors. We recommend using updated methods and data to improve consideration of human variability and susceptibility in risk assessment, including the use of increased default human variability factors and separate adjustment factors for capturing age/life stage of development and exposure to multiple chemical and non-chemical stressors. Updated methods would result in greater transparency and protection for susceptible groups, including children, infants, people who are pregnant or nursing, people with disabilities, and those burdened by additional environmental exposures and/or social factors such as poverty and racism.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9835253
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98352532023-01-13 Current practice and recommendations for advancing how human variability and susceptibility are considered in chemical risk assessment Varshavsky, Julia R. Rayasam, Swati D. G. Sass, Jennifer B. Axelrad, Daniel A. Cranor, Carl F. Hattis, Dale Hauser, Russ Koman, Patricia D. Marquez, Emily C. Morello-Frosch, Rachel Oksas, Catherine Patton, Sharyle Robinson, Joshua F. Sathyanarayana, Sheela Shepard, Peggy M. Woodruff, Tracey J. Environ Health Review A key element of risk assessment is accounting for the full range of variability in response to environmental exposures. Default dose-response methods typically assume a 10-fold difference in response to chemical exposures between average (healthy) and susceptible humans, despite evidence of wider variability. Experts and authoritative bodies support using advanced techniques to better account for human variability due to factors such as in utero or early life exposure and exposure to multiple environmental, social, and economic stressors. This review describes: 1) sources of human variability and susceptibility in dose-response assessment, 2) existing US frameworks for addressing response variability in risk assessment; 3) key scientific inadequacies necessitating updated methods; 4) improved approaches and opportunities for better use of science; and 5) specific and quantitative recommendations to address evidence and policy needs. Current default adjustment factors do not sufficiently capture human variability in dose-response and thus are inadequate to protect the entire population. Susceptible groups are not appropriately protected under current regulatory guidelines. Emerging tools and data sources that better account for human variability and susceptibility include probabilistic methods, genetically diverse in vivo and in vitro models, and the use of human data to capture underlying risk and/or assess combined effects from chemical and non-chemical stressors. We recommend using updated methods and data to improve consideration of human variability and susceptibility in risk assessment, including the use of increased default human variability factors and separate adjustment factors for capturing age/life stage of development and exposure to multiple chemical and non-chemical stressors. Updated methods would result in greater transparency and protection for susceptible groups, including children, infants, people who are pregnant or nursing, people with disabilities, and those burdened by additional environmental exposures and/or social factors such as poverty and racism. BioMed Central 2023-01-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9835253/ /pubmed/36635753 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00940-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review
Varshavsky, Julia R.
Rayasam, Swati D. G.
Sass, Jennifer B.
Axelrad, Daniel A.
Cranor, Carl F.
Hattis, Dale
Hauser, Russ
Koman, Patricia D.
Marquez, Emily C.
Morello-Frosch, Rachel
Oksas, Catherine
Patton, Sharyle
Robinson, Joshua F.
Sathyanarayana, Sheela
Shepard, Peggy M.
Woodruff, Tracey J.
Current practice and recommendations for advancing how human variability and susceptibility are considered in chemical risk assessment
title Current practice and recommendations for advancing how human variability and susceptibility are considered in chemical risk assessment
title_full Current practice and recommendations for advancing how human variability and susceptibility are considered in chemical risk assessment
title_fullStr Current practice and recommendations for advancing how human variability and susceptibility are considered in chemical risk assessment
title_full_unstemmed Current practice and recommendations for advancing how human variability and susceptibility are considered in chemical risk assessment
title_short Current practice and recommendations for advancing how human variability and susceptibility are considered in chemical risk assessment
title_sort current practice and recommendations for advancing how human variability and susceptibility are considered in chemical risk assessment
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9835253/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36635753
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00940-1
work_keys_str_mv AT varshavskyjuliar currentpracticeandrecommendationsforadvancinghowhumanvariabilityandsusceptibilityareconsideredinchemicalriskassessment
AT rayasamswatidg currentpracticeandrecommendationsforadvancinghowhumanvariabilityandsusceptibilityareconsideredinchemicalriskassessment
AT sassjenniferb currentpracticeandrecommendationsforadvancinghowhumanvariabilityandsusceptibilityareconsideredinchemicalriskassessment
AT axelraddaniela currentpracticeandrecommendationsforadvancinghowhumanvariabilityandsusceptibilityareconsideredinchemicalriskassessment
AT cranorcarlf currentpracticeandrecommendationsforadvancinghowhumanvariabilityandsusceptibilityareconsideredinchemicalriskassessment
AT hattisdale currentpracticeandrecommendationsforadvancinghowhumanvariabilityandsusceptibilityareconsideredinchemicalriskassessment
AT hauserruss currentpracticeandrecommendationsforadvancinghowhumanvariabilityandsusceptibilityareconsideredinchemicalriskassessment
AT komanpatriciad currentpracticeandrecommendationsforadvancinghowhumanvariabilityandsusceptibilityareconsideredinchemicalriskassessment
AT marquezemilyc currentpracticeandrecommendationsforadvancinghowhumanvariabilityandsusceptibilityareconsideredinchemicalriskassessment
AT morellofroschrachel currentpracticeandrecommendationsforadvancinghowhumanvariabilityandsusceptibilityareconsideredinchemicalriskassessment
AT oksascatherine currentpracticeandrecommendationsforadvancinghowhumanvariabilityandsusceptibilityareconsideredinchemicalriskassessment
AT pattonsharyle currentpracticeandrecommendationsforadvancinghowhumanvariabilityandsusceptibilityareconsideredinchemicalriskassessment
AT robinsonjoshuaf currentpracticeandrecommendationsforadvancinghowhumanvariabilityandsusceptibilityareconsideredinchemicalriskassessment
AT sathyanarayanasheela currentpracticeandrecommendationsforadvancinghowhumanvariabilityandsusceptibilityareconsideredinchemicalriskassessment
AT shepardpeggym currentpracticeandrecommendationsforadvancinghowhumanvariabilityandsusceptibilityareconsideredinchemicalriskassessment
AT woodrufftraceyj currentpracticeandrecommendationsforadvancinghowhumanvariabilityandsusceptibilityareconsideredinchemicalriskassessment