Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Using human data to protect the public's health.

M L Dourson1, M E Andersen, L S Erdreich

  • 1Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, 1757 Chase Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45223, USA. Dourson@tera.org

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology : RTP
|May 15, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same authorSame journal

Consideration of carcinogenicity and mode of action information by an independent expert panel to support derivation of no-significant-risk-level values for vinyl acetate monomer.

Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP·2026
Same author

Prognostic significance of circulating tumor DNA as a baseline or dynamic factor in advanced NSCLC without oncogenic drivers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Critical reviews in oncology/hematology·2026
Same author

Using available <i>in vitro</i> metabolite identification and time course kinetics for β-chloroprene and its metabolite, (1-chloroethenyl) oxirane, to include reactive oxidative metabolites and glutathione depletion in a PBPK model for β-chloroprene.

Frontiers in pharmacology·2023
Same author

Response to "letter concerning: Clewell (2019) incorporation of <i>in vitro</i> metabolism data and physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling in a risk assessment for chloroprene." (UIHT-2020-0053).

Inhalation toxicology·2020
Same author

Derivation of whole blood biomonitoring equivalents for titanium for the interpretation of biomonitoring data.

Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP·2020
Same author

Toxicity testing in the 21st century: progress in the past decade and future perspectives.

Archives of toxicology·2019

Human data is crucial for accurate risk assessment, often yielding lower safety thresholds than animal data. Utilizing human studies and pharmacokinetic modeling enhances public health protection policies.

Area of Science:

  • Toxicology and Risk Assessment
  • Environmental Health Sciences
  • Pharmacokinetics and Human Studies

Background:

  • The use of human data in risk assessment for environmental contaminants, drugs, and chemicals has a long history.
  • Recent discussions within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have raised questions about the reliance on human data for risk assessment.
  • Existing risk assessment frameworks often rely on experimental animal data to derive safety values.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the differences between risk assessment values derived from human data versus experimental animal data.
  • To assess the availability and appropriateness of animal data for deriving risk assessment values.
  • To highlight the importance of human pharmacokinetic and mechanistic data in risk management decisions.

Main Methods:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Comparison of reference doses (RfDs) and reference concentrations (RfCs) derived from human data (Integrated Risk Information System - IRIS) with those estimated from animal data.
  • Inclusion of minimal risk levels from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and tolerable intakes from Health Canada in the comparison.
  • Analysis of human pharmacokinetic data from volunteer studies and in vitro mechanistic studies.
  • Application of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling to assess interindividual variability.

Main Results:

  • Human-based RfDs were over threefold lower than animal-based RfDs in 23% of comparisons.
  • Human-based RfDs or RfCs were lower than animal-based ones in 36% of all comparisons.
  • For 10 out of 43 comparisons, experimental animal data were insufficient or inappropriate for deriving RfDs or RfCs.

Conclusions:

  • Direct use and interpretation of human data, alongside animal data, are essential for robust public health protection.
  • Human pharmacokinetic and mechanistic data are critical for understanding variability and identifying at-risk populations.
  • Policies encouraging the integrated use of human and animal data in risk assessment should be promoted.