Library

Notes: In earlier work we assembled a database of classical pharmacokinetic parameters (e.g., elimination half-lives; volumes of distribution) in children and adults. These data were then analyzed to define mean differences between adults and children of various age groups. In this article, we first analyze the variability in half-life observations where individual data exist. The major findings are as follows. The age groups defined in the earlier analysis of arithmetic mean data (0–1 week premature; 0–1 week full term; 1 week to 2 months; 2–6 months; 6 months to 2 years; 2–12 years; and 12–18 years) are reasonable for depicting child/adult pharmacokinetic differences, but data for some of the earliest age groups are highly variable. The fraction of individual children's half-lives observed to exceed the adult mean half-life by more than the 3.2-fold uncertainty factor commonly attributed to interindividual pharmacokinetic variability is 27% (16/59) for the 0–1 week age group, and 19% (5/26) in the 1 week to 2 month age group, compared to 0/87 for all the other age groups combined between 2 months and 18 years. Children within specific age groups appear to differ from adults with respect to the amount of variability and the form of the distribution of half-lives across the population. The data indicate departure from simple unimodal distributions, particularly in the 1 week to 2 month age group, suggesting that key developmental steps affecting drug removal tend to occur in that period. Finally, in preparation for age-dependent physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling, nationally representative NHANES III data are analyzed for distributions of body size and fat content. The data from about age 3 to age 10 reveal important departures from simple unimodal distributional forms—in the direction suggesting a subpopulation of children that are markedly heavier than those in the major mode. For risk assessment modeling, this means that analysts will need to consider “mixed” distributions (e.g., two or more normal or log-normal modes) in which the proportions of children falling within the major versus high-weight/fat modes in the mixture changes as a function of age. Biologically, the most natural interpretation of this is that these subpopulations represent children who have or have not to yet received particular signals for change in growth pattern. These apparently distinct subpopulations would be expected to exhibit different disposition of xenobiotics, particularly those that are highly lipophilic and poorly metabolized.

Notes: This paper reviews existing data on the variability in parameters relevant for health risk analyses. We cover both exposure-related parameters andparameters related to individual susceptibility to toxicity. The toxicity/susceptibility data base under construction is part of a longer term research effort to lay the groundwork for quantitative distributional analyses of non-cancer toxic risks. These data are broken down into a variety of parameter types that encompass different portions of the pathway from external exposure to the production of biological responses. The discrete steps in this pathway, as we now conceive them, are:〈list xml:id="l2" style="custom"〉•Contact Rate (Breathing rates per body weight; fish consumption per bodyweight)•Uptake or Absorption as a Fraction of Intake or Contact Rate•General Systemic Availability Net of First Pass Elimination and Dilutionvia Distribution Volume (e.g., intial blood concentration per mg/kg of uptake)•Systemic Elimination (half life or clearance)•Active Site Concentration per Systemic Blood or Plasma Concentration•Physiological Parameter Change per Active Site Concentration (expressed as the dose required to make a given percentage change in different people, or the dose required to achieve some proportion of an individual's maximum response to the drug or toxicant)•Functional Reserve Capacity-Change in Baseline Physiological Parameter Needed to Produce a Biological Response or Pass a Criterion of Abnormal FunctionComparison of the amounts of variability observed for the different parameter types suggests that appreciable variability is associated with the final step in the process-differences among people in “functional reserve capacity.” This has the implication that relevant information for estimatingeffective toxic susceptibility distributions may be gleaned by direct studies of the population distributions of key physiological parameters in people that are not exposed to the environmental and occupational toxicants thatare thought to perturb those parameters. This is illustrated with some recent observations of the population distributions of Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol from the second and third National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys.

Notes: This paper is a challenge from a pair of lifelong technical specialists in risk assessment for the risk-management community to better define social decision criteria for risk acceptance vs. risk control in relation to the issues of variability and uncertainty. To stimulate discussion, we offer a variety of “straw man” proposals about where we think Variability and uncertainty are likely to matter for different types of social policy considerations in the context of a few different kinds of decisions. In particular, we draw on recent presentations of uncertainty and variability data that have been offered by EPA in the context of the consideration of revised ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air Act.

Notes: Part of the explanation for the persistent epidemiological findings of associations between mortality and morbidity with relatively modest ambient exposures to airborne particles may be that some people are much more susceptible to particle-induced responses than others. This study assembled a database of quantitative observations of interindividual variability in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters likely to affect particle response. The pharmacodynamic responses studied included data drawn from epidemiologic studies of doses of methacholine, flour dust, and other agents that induce acute changes in lung function. In general, the amount of interindividual variability in several of these pharmacodynamic response parameters was greater than the variability in pharmacokinetic (breathing rate, deposition, and clearance) parameters. Quantitatively the results indicated that human interindividual variability of breathing rates and major pharmacokinetic parameters—total deposition and tracheobronchial clearance—were in the region of Log(GSD) = 0.1 to 0.2 (corresponding to geometric standard deviations of 10.1 – 10.2 or 1.26 – 1.58). Deposition to the deep lung (alveolar region) appeared to be somewhat more variable: Log(GSD) of about 0.3 (GSD of about 2). Among pharmacodynamic parameters, changes in FEV1 in response to ozone and metabisulfite (an agent that is said to act primarily on neural receptors in the lung) were in the region of Log(GSD) of 0.2 to 0.4. However, similar responses to methacholine, an agent that acts on smooth muscle, seemed to have still more variability (0.4 to somewhat over 1.0, depending on the type of population studied). Similarly high values were suggested for particulate allergens. Central estimates of this kind of variability, and the close correspondence of the data to lognormal distributions, indicate that 99.9th percentile individuals are likely to respond at doses that are 150 to 450-fold less than would be needed in median individuals. It seems plausible that acute responses with this amount of variability could form part of the mechanistic basis for epidemiological observations of enhanced mortality in relation to ambient exposures to fine particles.

Notes: In recent years physiologically based pharmacokinetic models have come to play an increasingly important role in risk assessment for carcinogens. The hope is that they can help open the black box between external exposure and carcinogenic effects to experimental observations, and improve both high-dose to low-dose and interspecies projections of risk. However, to date, there have been only relatively preliminary efforts to assess the uncertainties in current modeling results. In this paper we compare the physiologically based pharmacokinetic models (and model predictions of risk-related overall metabolism) that have been produced by seven different sets of authors for perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene). The most striking conclusion from the data is that most of the differences in risk-related model predictions are attributable to the choice of the data sets used for calibrating the metabolic parameters. Second, it is clear that the bottom-line differences among the model predictions are appreciable. Overall, the ratios of low-dose human to bioassay rodent metabolism spanned a 30-fold range for the six available human/rat comparisons, and the seven predicted ratios of low-dose human to bioassay mouse metabolism spanned a 13-fold range. (The greater range for the rat/human comparison is attributable to a structural assumption by one author group of competing linear and saturable pathways, and their conclusion that the dangerous saturable pathway constitutes a minor fraction of metabolism in rats.) It is clear that there are a number of opportunities for modelers to make different choices of model structure, interpretive assumptions, and calibrating data in the process of constructing pharmacokinetic models for use in estimating “delivered” or “biologically effective” dose for carcinogenesis risk assessments. We believe that in presenting the results of such modeling studies, it is important for researchers to explore the results of alternative, reasonably likely approaches for interpreting the available data—and either show that any conclusions they make are relatively insensitive to particular interpretive choices, or to acknowledge the differences in conclusions that would result from plausible alternative views of the world.

Notes: Neither experimental animal exposures nor real-life human exposures are delivered at a constant level over a full lifetime. Although there are strong theoretical reasons why all pharmacokinetic processes must “go linear” at the limit of low dose rates, fluctuations in dose rate may produce nonlinearities that either increase or decrease actual risks relative to what would be expected for constant lifetime exposure. This paper discusses quantitative theory and specific examples for a number of processes that can be expected to give rise to pharmacokinetic nonlinearities at high dose rates–including transport processes (e.g., renal tubular secretion), activating and detoxifying metabolism, DNA repair, and enhancement of cell replication following gross toxicity in target tissues. At the extreme, full saturation of a detoxification or DNA repair process has the potential to create as much as a dose2 dependence of risk on dose delivered in a single burst, and if more than one detoxification step becomes fully saturated, this can be compounded. Effects via changes in cell replication rates, which appear likely to be largely responsible for the steep upward turning curve of formaldehyde carcinogenesis in rats, can be even more profound over a relatively narrow range of dosage. General suggestions are made for experimental methods to detect nonlinearities arising from the various sources in premarket screening programs.

Notes: The tenfold “uncertainty” factor traditionally used to guard against human interindividual differences in susceptibility to toxicity is not based on human observations. To begin to build a basis for quantifying an important component of overall variability in susceptibility to toxicity, a data base has been constructed of individual measurements of key pharmacokinetic parameters for specific substances (mostly drugs) in groups of at least five healthy adults. 72 of the 101 data sets studied were positively skewed, indicating that the distributions are generally closer to expectations for log-normal distributions than for normal distributions. Measurements of interindividual variability in elimination half-lives, maximal blood concentrations, and AUC (area under the curve of blood concentration by time) have median values of log10 geometric standard deviations in the range of 0.11–0.145. For the median chemical, therefore, a tenfold difference in these pharmacokinetic parameters would correspond to 7–9 standard deviations in populations of normal healthy adults. For one relatively lipophilic chemical, however, interindividual variability in maximual blood concentration and AUC was 0.4—implying that a tenfold difference would correspond to only about 2.5 standard deviations for those parameters in the human population. The parameters studied to date are only components of overall susceptibility to toxic agents, and do not include contributions from variability in exposure- and response-determining parameters. The current study also implicitly excludes most human interindividual variability from age and illness. When these other sources of variability are included in an overall analysis of variability in susceptibility, it is likely that a tenfold difference will correspond to fewer standard deviations in the overall population, and correspondingly greater numbers of people at risk of toxicity.

Notes: Risk assessment for airborne carcinogens is often limited by a lack of inhalation bioassay data. While extrapolation from oral-based cancer potency factors may be possible for some agents, this is not considered feasible for contact site carcinogens. The change in contact sites (oral: g.i. tract; inhalation: respiratory tract) when switching dose routes leads to possible differences in tissue sensitivity as well as chemical delivery. This research evaluates the feasibility to extrapolate across dose routes for a contact site carcinogen through a case study with epichlorohydrin (EPI). EPI cancer potency at contact sites is compared across three bioassays involving different dose routes (gavage, drinking water, inhalation) through the use of dosimetry models to adjust for EPI delivery to contact sites. Results indicate a large disparity (two orders of magnitude) in potency across the three routes of administration when expressed as the externally applied dose. However, when expressed as peak delivered dose, inhalation and oral potency estimates are similar and overall, the three potency estimates are within a factor of seven. The results suggest that contact site response to EPI is more dependent upon the rate than the route of delivery, with peak concentration the best way to extrapolate across dose routes. These results cannot be projected to other carcinogens without further study.