Characterizing Dose-Response I: Critical Assessment of the Benchmark Dose Concept

We present a critical assessment of the benchmark dose (BMD) method introduced by Crump⁽¹⁾ as an alternative method for setting a characteristic dose level for toxicant risk assessment. The no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) method has been criticized because it does not use all of the data and because the characteristic dose level obtained depends on the dose levels and the statistical precision (sample sizes) of the study design. Defining the BMD in terms of a confidence bound on a point estimate results in a characteristic dose that also varies with the statistical precision and still depends on the study dose levels.⁽²⁾ Indiscriminate choice of benchmark response level may result in a BMD that reflects little about the dose-response behavior available from using all of the data. Another concern is that the definition of the BMD for the quantal response case is different for the continuous response case. Specifically, defining the BMD for continuous data using a ratio of increased effect divided by the background response results in an arbitrary dependence on the natural background for the endpoint being studied, making comparison among endpoints less meaningful and standards more arbitrary. We define a modified benchmark dose as a point estimate using the ratio of increased effect divided by the full adverse response range which enables consistent placement of the benchmark response level and provides a BMD with a more consistent relationship to the dose-response curve shape.     

Benchmark Calculations in Risk Assessment Using Continuous Dose-Response Information: The Influence of Variance and the Determination of a Cut-Off Value

A benchmark dose (BMD) is the dose of a chemical that corresponds to a predetermined increase in the response (the benchmark response, BMR) of a health effect. In this article, a method (the hybrid approach) for benchmark calculations from continuous dose-response information is investigated. In the formulation of the methodology, a cut-off value for an adverse health effect has to be determined. It is shown that the influence of variance on the hybrid model depends on the choice of determination of the cut-off point. If the cut-off value is determined as corresponding to a specified tail proportion of the control distribution, P(0), the BMD becomes biased upward when the variance is biased upward. On the contrary, if the cut-off value is directly determined to some level of the continuous response variable, the BMD becomes biased upward when the variance is biased downward. A simulation study was also performed in which the accuracy and precision of the BMD was compared for the two ways of determining the cut-off value. In general, considering BMRs of 1, 5, and 10% (additional risk) the precision of the BMD became higher when the cut-off value was estimated by specifying P(0), relative to the case with a direct determination. Use of the square-root of the maximum-likelihood estimator of the variance in BMD estimation may provide a bias that is reflected by the cut-off formulation (downward bias if specifying P(0), and upward bias if specifying the cut-off, c, directly). This feature may be reduced if an unbiased estimator of the standard deviation is used in the calculations.     

Application of a Biologically-Based RFD Estimation Method to Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin (TCDD) Mediated Immune Suppression and Enzyme Induction

The current methods for a reference dose (RfD) determination can be enhanced through the use of biologically-based dose-response analysis. Methods developed here utilizes information from tetrachlorodibenzo- p -dioxin (TCDD) to focus on noncancer endpoints, specifically TCDD mediated immune system alterations and enzyme induction. Dose-response analysis, using the Sigmoid-Emax (EMAX) function, is applied to multiple studies to determine consistency of response. Through the use of multiple studies and statistical comparison of parameter estimates, it was demonstrated that the slope estimates across studies were very consistent. This adds confidence to the subsequent effect dose estimates. This study also compares traditional methods of risk assessment such as the NOAEL/safety factor to a modified benchmark dose approach which is introduced here. Confidence in the estimation of an effect dose (ED₁₀) was improved through the use of multiple datasets. This is key to adding confidence to the benchmark dose estimates. In addition, the Sigmoid-Emax function when applied to dose-response data using nonlinear regression analysis provides a significantly improved fit to data increasing confidence in parameter estimates which subsequently improve effect dose estimates.     

Dose-Response Models for Inhalation of Bacillus anthracis Spores: Interspecies Comparisons

Because experiments with Bacillus anthracis are costly and dangerous, the scientific, public health, and engineering communities are served by thorough collation and analysis of experiments reported in the open literature. This study identifies available dose-response data from the open literature for inhalation exposure to B. anthracis and, via dose-response modeling, characterizes the response of nonhuman animal models to challenges. Two studies involving four data sets amenable to dose-response modeling were found in the literature: two data sets of response of guinea pigs to intranasal dosing with the Vollum and ATCC-6605 strains, one set of responses of rhesus monkeys to aerosol exposure to the Vollum strain, and one data set of guinea pig response to aerosol exposure to the Vollum strain. None of the data sets exhibited overdispersion and all but one were best fit by an exponential dose-response model. The beta-Poisson dose-response model provided the best fit to the remaining data set. As indicated in prior studies, the response to aerosol challenges is a strong function of aerosol diameter. For guinea pigs, the LD₅₀ increases with aerosol size for aerosols at and above 4.5 μm. For both rhesus monkeys and guinea pigs there is about a 15-fold increase in LD₅₀ when aerosol size is increased from 1 μm to 12 μm. Future experimental research and dose-response modeling should be performed to quantify differences in responses of subpopulations to B. anthracis and to generate data allowing development of interspecies correction factors.     

An Analytical Framework for Relating Dose, Risk, and Incidence: An Application to Occupational Tuberculosis Infection

An adverse health impact is often treated as a binary variable (response vs. no response), in which case the risk of response is defined as a monotonically increasing function R of the dose received D. For a population of size N , specifying the forms of R(D) and of the probability density function (pdf) for D allows determination of the pdf for risk, and computation of the mean and variance of the distribution of incidence, where the latter parameters are denoted E[S _N] and Var[ S _N], respectively. The distribution of S _N describes uncertainty in the future incidence value. Given variability in dose (and risk) among population members, the distribution of incidence is Poisson-binomial. However, depending on the value of E[S _N], the distribution of incidence is adequately approximated by a Poisson distribution with parameter μ= E[S _N], or by a normal distribution with mean and variance equal to E[S _N] and Var[ S _N]. The general analytical framework is applied to occupational infection by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M. tb). Tuberculosis is transmitted by inhalation of 1–5 μm particles carrying viable M. tb bacilli. Infection risk has traditionally been modeled by the expression: R(D) = 1 – exp(– D ), where D is the expected number of bacilli that deposit in the pulmonary region. This model assumes that the infectious dose is one bacillus. The beta pdf and the gamma pdf are shown to be reasonable and especially convenient forms for modeling the distribution of the expected cumulative dose across a large healthcare worker cohort. Use of the the analytical framework is illustrated by estimating the efficacy of different respiratory protective devices in reducing healthcare worker infection risk.     

A Comparison of Methods for Estimating the Benchmark Dose Based on Overdispersed Data from Developmental Toxicity Studies

Developmental anomalies resulting from prenatal toxicity can be manifested in terms of both malformations among surviving offspring and prenatal death. Although these two endpoints have traditionally been analyzed separately in the assessment of risk, multivariate methods of risk characterization have recently been proposed. We examined this and other issues in developmental toxicity risk assessment by evaluating the accuracy and precision of estimates of the effective dose ( ED ₀₅) and the benchmark dose ( BMD ₀₅) using computer simulation. Our results indicated that different variance structures (Dirichlet-trinomial and generalized linear model) used to characterize overdispersion yielded comparable results when fitting joint dose response models based on generalized estimating equations. (The choice of variance structure in separate modeling was also not critical.) However, using the Rao-Scott transformation to eliminate overdispersion tended to produce estimates of the ED ₀₅ with reduced bias and mean squared error. Because joint modeling ensures that the ED ₀₅ for overall toxicity (based on both malformations and prenatal death) is always less than the ED ₀₅ for either malformations or prenatal death, joint modeling is preferred to separate modeling for risk assessment purposes.     

A Comparison of Three Methods for Calculating Confidence Intervals for the Benchmark Dose

Various methods exist to calculate confidence intervals for the benchmark dose in risk analysis. This study compares the performance of three such methods in fitting nonlinear dose-response models: the delta method, the likelihood-ratio method, and the bootstrap method. A data set from a developmental toxicity test with continuous, ordinal, and quantal dose-response data is used for the comparison of these methods. Nonlinear dose-response models, with various shapes, were fitted to these data. The results indicate that a few thousand runs are generally needed to get stable confidence limits when using the bootstrap method. Further, the bootstrap and the likelihood-ratio method were found to give fairly similar results. The delta method, however, resulted in some cases in different (usually narrower) intervals, and appears unreliable for nonlinear dose-response models. Since the bootstrap method is more time consuming than the likelihood-ratio method, the latter is more attractive for routine dose-response analysis. In the context of a probabilistic risk assessment the bootstrap method has the advantage that it directly links to Monte Carlo analysis.     

Bayesian Quantile Impairment Threshold Benchmark Dose Estimation for Continuous Endpoints

Quantitative risk assessment often begins with an estimate of the exposure or dose associated with a particular risk level from which exposure levels posing low risk to populations can be extrapolated. For continuous exposures, this value, the benchmark dose, is often defined by a specified increase (or decrease) from the median or mean response at no exposure. This method of calculating the benchmark dose does not take into account the response distribution and, consequently, cannot be interpreted based upon probability statements of the target population. We investigate quantile regression as an alternative to the use of the median or mean regression. By defining the dose–response quantile relationship and an impairment threshold, we specify a benchmark dose as the dose associated with a specified probability that the population will have a response equal to or more extreme than the specified impairment threshold. In addition, in an effort to minimize model uncertainty, we use Bayesian monotonic semiparametric regression to define the exposure–response quantile relationship, which gives the model flexibility to estimate the quantal dose–response function. We describe this methodology and apply it to both epidemiology and toxicology data.     

A Simulation Study of Quantitative Risk Assessment for Bivariate Continuous Outcomes

The neurotoxic effects of chemical agents are often investigated in controlled studies on rodents, with binary and continuous multiple endpoints routinely collected. One goal is to conduct quantitative risk assessment to determine safe dose levels. Yu and Catalano (2005) describe a method for quantitative risk assessment for bivariate continuous outcomes by extending a univariate method of percentile regression. The model is likelihood based and allows for separate dose‐response models for each outcome while accounting for the bivariate correlation. The approach to benchmark dose (BMD) estimation is analogous to that for quantal data without having to specify arbitrary cutoff values. In this article, we evaluate the behavior of the BMD relative to background rates, sample size, level of bivariate correlation, dose‐response trend, and distributional assumptions. Using simulations, we explore the effects of these factors on the resulting BMD and BMDL distributions. In addition, we illustrate our method with data from a neurotoxicity study of parathion exposure in rats.     

A Review of Recent Advances in Benchmark Dose Methodology

In this review, recent methodological developments for the benchmark dose (BMD) methodology are summarized. Specifically, we introduce the advances for the main steps in BMD derivation: selecting the procedure for defining a BMD from a predefined benchmark response (BMR), setting a BMR, selecting a dose–response model, and estimating the corresponding BMD lower limit (BMDL). Although the last decade has shown major progress in the development of BMD methodology, there is still room for improvement. Remaining challenges are the implementation of new statistical methods in user‐friendly software and the lack of consensus about how to derive the BMDL.     

Cardiac Sensitization Thresholds of Halon Replacement Chemicals Predicted in Humans by Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling

Human exposure to halons and halon replacement chemicals is often regulated on the basis of cardiac sensitization potential. The dose-response data obtained from animal testing are used to determine the no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) and lowest observable adverse effect level (LOAEL) values. This approach alone does not provide the information necessary to evaluate the cardiac sensitization potential for the chemical of interest under a variety of exposure concentrations and durations. In order to provide a tool for decision-makers and regulators tasked with setting exposure guidelines for halon replacement chemicals, a quantitative approach was established which allowed exposures to be assessed in terms of the chemical concentrations in blood during the exposure. A physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model was used to simulate blood concentrations of Halon 1301 (bromotrifluoromethane, CF₃Br), HFC-125 (pentafluoroethane, CHF₂CF₃), HFC-227ea (heptafluoropropane, CF₃CHFCF₃), HCFC-123 (dichlorotrifluoroethane, CHCl₂CF₃), and CF₃I (trifluoroiodomethane) during inhalation exposures. This work demonstrates a quantitative approach for use in linking chemical inhalation exposures to the levels of chemical in blood achieved during the exposure.     

Bootstrap Estimation of Benchmark Doses and Confidence Limits with Clustered Quantal Data

The benchmark dose (BMD) is an exposure level that would induce a small risk increase (BMR level) above the background. The BMD approach to deriving a reference dose for risk assessment of noncancer effects is advantageous in that the estimate of BMD is not restricted to experimental doses and utilizes most available dose-response information. To quantify statistical uncertainty of a BMD estimate, we often calculate and report its lower confidence limit (i.e., BMDL), and may even consider it as a more conservative alternative to BMD itself. Computation of BMDL may involve normal confidence limits to BMD in conjunction with the delta method. Therefore, factors, such as small sample size and nonlinearity in model parameters, can affect the performance of the delta method BMDL, and alternative methods are useful. In this article, we propose a bootstrap method to estimate BMDL utilizing a scheme that consists of a resampling of residuals after model fitting and a one-step formula for parameter estimation. We illustrate the method with clustered binary data from developmental toxicity experiments. Our analysis shows that with moderately elevated dose-response data, the distribution of BMD estimator tends to be left-skewed and bootstrap BMDL s are smaller than the delta method BMDL s on average, hence quantifying risk more conservatively. Statistically, the bootstrap BMDL quantifies the uncertainty of the true BMD more honestly than the delta method BMDL as its coverage probability is closer to the nominal level than that of delta method BMDL. We find that BMD and BMDL estimates are generally insensitive to model choices provided that the models fit the data comparably well near the region of BMD. Our analysis also suggests that, in the presence of a significant and moderately strong dose-response relationship, the developmental toxicity experiments under the standard protocol support dose-response assessment at 5% BMR for BMD and 95% confidence level for BMDL.     

Reanalysis of Dose-Response Data from the Iraqi Methylmercury Poisoning Episode

Applying a hockey stick parametric dose-response model to data on late or retarded development in Iraqi children exposed in utero to methylmercury, with mercury (Hg) exposure characterized by the peak Hg concentration in mothers'hair during pregnancy, Cox et al. calculated the "best statistical estimate" of the threshold for health effects as 10 ppm Hg in hair with a 95% range of uncertainty of between 0 and 13.6 ppm.⁽¹⁾A new application of the hockey stick model to the Iraqi data shows, however, that the statistical upper limit of the threshold based on the hockey stick model could be as high as 255 ppm. Furthermore, the maximum likelihood estimate of the threshold using a different parametric model is virtually zero. These and other analyses demonstrate that threshold estimates based on parametric models exhibit high statistical variability and model dependency, and are highly sensitive to the precise definition of an abnormal response. Consequently, they are not a reliable basis for setting a reference dose (RfD) for methylmercury. Benchmark analyses and statistical analyses useful for deriving NOAELs are also presented. We believe these latter analyses—particularly the benchmark analyses—generally form a sounder basis for determining RfDs than the type of hockey stick analysis presented by Cox et al. However, the acute nature of the exposures, as well as other limitations in the Iraqi data suggest that other data may be more appropriate for determining acceptable human exposures to methylmercury.     

A Health Risk Benchmark for the Neurologic Effects of Styrene: Comparison with NOAEL/LOAEL Approach

Benchmark dose (BMD) analysis was used to estimate an inhalation benchmark concentration for styrene neurotoxicity. Quantal data on neuropsychologic test results from styrene-exposed workers [Mutti et al. (1984). American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 5, 275-286] were used to quantify neurotoxicity, defined as the percent of tested workers who responded abnormally to > or = 1, > or = 2, or > or = 3 out of a battery of eight tests. Exposure was based on previously published results on mean urinary mandelic- and phenylglyoxylic acid levels in the workers, converted to air styrene levels (15, 44, 74, or 115 ppm). Nonstyrene-exposed workers from the same region served as a control group. Maximum-likelihood estimates (MLEs) and BMDs at 5 and 10% response levels of the exposed population were obtained from log-normal analysis of the quantal data. The highest MLE was 9 ppm (BMD = 4 ppm) styrene and represents abnormal responses to > or = 3 tests by 10% of the exposed population. The most health-protective MLE was 2 ppm styrene (BMD = 0.3 ppm) and represents abnormal responses to > or = 1 test by 5% of the exposed population. A no observed adverse effect level/lowest observed adverse effect level (NOAEL/LOAEL) analysis of the same quantal data showed workers in all styrene exposure groups responded abnormally to > or = 1, > or = 2, or > or = 3 tests, compared to controls, and the LOAEL was 15 ppm. A comparison of the BMD and NOAEL/LOAEL analyses suggests that at air styrene levels below the LOAEL, a segment of the worker population may be adversely affected. The benchmark approach will be useful for styrene noncancer risk assessment purposes by providing a more accurate estimate of potential risk that should, in turn, help to reduce the uncertainty that is a common problem in setting exposure levels.     

Upper Confidence Limits on Excess Risk for Quantitative Responses

The definition and observation of clear-cut adverse health effects for continuous (quantitative) responses, such as altered body weights or organ weights, are difficult propositions. Thus, methods of risk assessment commonly used for binary (quantal) toxic responses such as cancer are not directly applicable. In this paper, two methods for calculating upper confidence limits on excess risk for quantitative toxic effects are proposed, based on a particular definition of an adverse quantitative response. The methods are illustrated with data from a dose-response study, and their performance is evaluated with a Monte Carlo simulation study.     

Point Estimates of Cancer Risk at Low Doses

There has been considerable discussion regarding the conservativeness of low-dose cancer risk estimates based upon linear extrapolation from upper confidence limits. Various groups have expressed a need for best (point) estimates of cancer risk in order to improve risk/benefit decisions. Point estimates of carcinogenic potency obtained from maximum likelihood estimates of low-dose slope may be highly unstable, being sensitive both to the choice of the dose–response model and possibly to minimal perturbations of the data. For carcinogens that augment background carcinogenic processes and/or for mutagenic carcinogens, at low doses the tumor incidence versus target tissue dose is expected to be linear. Pharmacokinetic data may be needed to identify and adjust for exposure-dose nonlinearities. Based on the assumption that the dose response is linear over low doses, a stable point estimate for low-dose cancer risk is proposed. Since various models give similar estimates of risk down to levels of 1%, a stable estimate of the low-dose cancer slope is provided by ŝ = 0.01/ED01, where ED01 is the dose corresponding to an excess cancer risk of 1%. Thus, low-dose estimates of cancer risk are obtained by, risk = ŝ × dose. The proposed procedure is similar to one which has been utilized in the past by the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration. The upper confidence limit, s , corresponding to this point estimate of low-dose slope is similar to the upper limit, q ₁ obtained from the generalized multistage model. The advantage of the proposed procedure is that ŝ provides stable estimates of low-dose carcinogenic potency, which are not unduly influenced by small perturbations of the tumor incidence rates, unlike ₁.     

Model Selection and Estimation with Quantal‐Response Data in Benchmark Risk Assessment

This article describes several approaches for estimating the benchmark dose (BMD) in a risk assessment study with quantal dose‐response data and when there are competing model classes for the dose‐response function. Strategies involving a two‐step approach, a model‐averaging approach, a focused‐inference approach, and a nonparametric approach based on a PAVA‐based estimator of the dose‐response function are described and compared. Attention is raised to the perils involved in data “double‐dipping” and the need to adjust for the model‐selection stage in the estimation procedure. Simulation results are presented comparing the performance of five model selectors and eight BMD estimators. An illustration using a real quantal‐response data set from a carcinogenecity study is provided.     

A Comparison of Methods of Benchmark-Dose Estimation for Continuous Response Data

Methods of quantitative risk assessment for toxic responses that are measured on a continuous scale are not well established. Although risk-assessment procedures that attempt to utilize the quantitative information in such data have been proposed, there is no general agreement that these procedures are appreciably more efficient than common quantal dose–response procedures that operate on dichotomized continuous data. This paper points out an equivalence between the dose–response models of the nonquantal approach of Kodell and West⁽¹⁾ and a quantal probit procedure, and provides results from a Monte Carlo simulation study to compare coverage probabilities of statistical lower confidence limits on dose corresponding to specified additional risk based on applying the two procedures to continuous data from a dose–response experiment. The nonquantal approach is shown to be superior, in terms of both statistical validity and statistical efficiency.     

On the Correlation Coefficient Between the TD50 and the MTD

The existence of correlation between the carcinogenic potency and the maximum tolerated dose has been the subject of many investigations in recent years. Several attempts have been made to quantify this correlation in different bioassay experiments. By using some distributional assumptions, Krewski et al .⁽¹⁾ derive an analytic expression for the coefficient of correlation between the carcinogenic potency TD₅₀ and the maximum tolerated dose. Here, we discuss the deviation that may result in using their analytical expression. By taking a more general approach we derive an expression for the correlation coefficient which includes the result of Krewski et al .⁽¹⁾ as a special case, and show that their expression may overestimate the correlation in some instances and yet underestimate the correlation in other instances. The proposed method is illustrated by application to a real dataset.