Toxicology and epidemiology are the two traditional public health scientific disciplines which can contribute to investigate harmful health effects of exposure to toxic substances. Several frameworks for integrating different lines of evidence were proposed since 2011, evolving based of the emergence of new methodologies and approaches. Through the comparison of various theoretical frameworks for evidence integration, we examined similarities, differences, strengths, and weaknesses to provide insights into potential directions for future research. We identified several key challenges of the integration approach to be applied to risk assessment. More specifically, collaboration within a multidisciplinary team of scientists, toxicologists, epidemiologists, and risk assessors, is strongly recommended to be aligned with key regulatory objectives and promote a harmonized approach. Moreover, literature search transparency and systematicity have to be ensured by following validated guidelines, developing parallel protocols for collecting epidemiological and toxicological evidence from various sources, including human, animal, and new approach methodologies (NAMs). Also, the adoption of tailored quality assessment tools is essential to grade the certainty in evidence. Lastly, we recommend the use of the Adverse Outcome Pathway framework to provide a structured understanding of toxicity mechanisms and allow the integration of human, animal, and NAMs data within a single framework.

A critical review on the toxicological and epidemiological evidence integration for assessing human health risks to environmental chemical exposures

Donzelli, Gabriele
Primo
;
Linzalone, Nunzia
Ultimo
2024

Abstract

Toxicology and epidemiology are the two traditional public health scientific disciplines which can contribute to investigate harmful health effects of exposure to toxic substances. Several frameworks for integrating different lines of evidence were proposed since 2011, evolving based of the emergence of new methodologies and approaches. Through the comparison of various theoretical frameworks for evidence integration, we examined similarities, differences, strengths, and weaknesses to provide insights into potential directions for future research. We identified several key challenges of the integration approach to be applied to risk assessment. More specifically, collaboration within a multidisciplinary team of scientists, toxicologists, epidemiologists, and risk assessors, is strongly recommended to be aligned with key regulatory objectives and promote a harmonized approach. Moreover, literature search transparency and systematicity have to be ensured by following validated guidelines, developing parallel protocols for collecting epidemiological and toxicological evidence from various sources, including human, animal, and new approach methodologies (NAMs). Also, the adoption of tailored quality assessment tools is essential to grade the certainty in evidence. Lastly, we recommend the use of the Adverse Outcome Pathway framework to provide a structured understanding of toxicity mechanisms and allow the integration of human, animal, and NAMs data within a single framework.
2024
Istituto di Fisiologia Clinica - IFC
adverse outcome pathways
chemical risk assessment
evidence integration
harmonized approach
new approach methodologies
regulatory decision-making
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Donzelli et al. - 2024 - A critical review on the toxicological and epidemi.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: A critical review on the toxicological and epidemiological evidence integration for assessing human health risks to environmental chemical exposures
Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 538.66 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
538.66 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14243/519964
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact