Influence of Distribution of Animals between Dose Groups on Estimated Benchmark Dose and Animal Welfare for Continuous Effects

The benchmark dose (BMD) approach is increasingly used as a preferred approach for dose–effect analysis, but standard experimental designs are generally not optimized for BMD analysis. The aim of this study was to evaluate how the use of unequally sized dose groups affects the quality of BMD estimates in toxicity testing, with special consideration of the total burden of animal distress. We generated continuous dose–effect data by Monte Carlo simulation using two dose–effect curves based on endpoints with different shape parameters. Eighty‐five designs, each with four dose groups of unequal size, were examined in scenarios ranging from low‐ to high‐dose placements and with a total number of animals set to 40, 80, or 200. For each simulation, a BMD value was estimated and compared with the “true” BMD. In general, redistribution of animals from higher to lower dose groups resulted in an improved precision of the calculated BMD value as long as dose placements were high enough to detect a significant trend in the dose–effect data with sufficient power. The improved BMD precision and the associated reduction of the number of animals exposed to the highest dose, where chemically induced distress is most likely to occur, are favorable for the reduction and refinement principles. The result thereby strengthen BMD‐aligned design of experiments as a means for more accurate hazard characterization along with animal welfare improvements.     

Benchmark Dose Calculation for Ordered Categorical Responses

The use of benchmark dose (BMD) calculations for dichotomous or continuous responses is well established in the risk assessment of cancer and noncancer endpoints. In some cases, responses to exposure are categorized in terms of ordinal severity effects such as none, mild, adverse, and severe. Such responses can be assessed using categorical regression (CATREG) analysis. However, while CATREG has been employed to compare the benchmark approach and the no‐adverse‐effect‐level (NOAEL) approach in determining a reference dose, the utility of CATREG for risk assessment remains unclear. This study proposes a CATREG model to extend the BMD approach to ordered categorical responses by modeling severity levels as censored interval limits of a standard normal distribution. The BMD is calculated as a weighted average of the BMDs obtained at dichotomous cutoffs for each adverse severity level above the critical effect, with the weights being proportional to the reciprocal of the expected loss at the cutoff under the normal probability model. This approach provides a link between the current BMD procedures for dichotomous and continuous data. We estimate the CATREG parameters using a Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation procedure. The proposed method is demonstrated using examples of aldicarb and urethane, each with several categories of severity levels. Simulation studies comparing the BMD and BMDL (lower confidence bound on the BMD) using the proposed method to the correspondent estimates using the existing methods for dichotomous and continuous data are quite compatible; the difference is mainly dependent on the choice of cutoffs for the severity levels.     

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 Dose Analysis via Nonparametric Regression Modeling

Estimation of benchmark doses (BMDs) in quantitative risk assessment traditionally is based upon parametric dose‐response modeling. It is a well‐known concern, however, that if the chosen parametric model is uncertain and/or misspecified, inaccurate and possibly unsafe low‐dose inferences can result. We describe a nonparametric approach for estimating BMDs with quantal‐response data based on an isotonic regression method, and also study use of corresponding, nonparametric, bootstrap‐based confidence limits for the BMD. We explore the confidence limits’ small‐sample properties via a simulation study, and illustrate the calculations with an example from cancer risk assessment. It is seen that this nonparametric approach can provide a useful alternative for BMD estimation when faced with the problem of parametric model uncertainty.     

Evaluation of the benchmark dose for point of departure determination for a variety of chemical classes in applied regulatory settings

Repeated-dose studies received by the New Substances Assessment and Control Bureau (NSACB) of Health Canada are used to provide hazard information toward risk calculation. These studies provide a point of departure (POD), traditionally the NOAEL or LOAEL, which is used to extrapolate the quantity of substance above which adverse effects can be expected in humans. This project explored the use of benchmark dose (BMD) modeling as an alternative to this approach for studies with few dose groups. Continuous data from oral repeated-dose studies for chemicals previously assessed by NSACB were reanalyzed using U.S. EPA benchmark dose software (BMDS) to determine the BMD and BMD 95% lower confidence limit (BMDL(05) ) for each endpoint critical to NOAEL or LOAEL determination for each chemical. Endpoint-specific benchmark dose-response levels , indicative of adversity, were consistently applied. An overall BMD and BMDL(05) were calculated for each chemical using the geometric mean. The POD obtained from benchmark analysis was then compared with the traditional toxicity thresholds originally used for risk assessment. The BMD and BMDL(05) generally were higher than the NOAEL, but lower than the LOAEL. BMDL(05) was generally constant at 57% of the BMD. Benchmark provided a clear advantage in health risk assessment when a LOAEL was the only POD identified, or when dose groups were widely distributed. Although the benchmark method cannot always be applied, in the selected studies with few dose groups it provided a more accurate estimate of the real no-adverse-effect level of a substance.     

Comparing Experimental Designs for Benchmark Dose Calculations for Continuous Endpoints

The BMD (benchmark dose) method that is used in risk assessment of chemical compounds was introduced by Crump (1984) and is based on dose-response modeling. To take uncertainty in the data and model fitting into account, the lower confidence bound of the BMD estimate (BMDL) is suggested to be used as a point of departure in health risk assessments. In this article, we study how to design optimum experiments for applying the BMD method for continuous data. We exemplify our approach by considering the class of Hill models. The main aim is to study whether an increased number of dose groups and at the same time a decreased number of animals in each dose group improves conditions for estimating the benchmark dose. Since Hill models are nonlinear, the optimum design depends on the values of the unknown parameters. That is why we consider Bayesian designs and assume that the parameter vector has a prior distribution. A natural design criterion is to minimize the expected variance of the BMD estimator. We present an example where we calculate the value of the design criterion for several designs and try to find out how the number of dose groups, the number of animals in the dose groups, and the choice of doses affects this value for different Hill curves. It follows from our calculations that to avoid the risk of unfavorable dose placements, it is good to use designs with more than four dose groups. We can also conclude that any additional information about the expected dose-response curve, e.g., information obtained from studies made in the past, should be taken into account when planning a study because it can improve the design.     

Model Uncertainty and Bayesian Model Averaged Benchmark Dose Estimation for Continuous Data

The benchmark dose (BMD) approach has gained acceptance as a valuable risk assessment tool, but risk assessors still face significant challenges associated with selecting an appropriate BMD/BMDL estimate from the results of a set of acceptable dose‐response models. Current approaches do not explicitly address model uncertainty, and there is an existing need to more fully inform health risk assessors in this regard. In this study, a Bayesian model averaging (BMA) BMD estimation method taking model uncertainty into account is proposed as an alternative to current BMD estimation approaches for continuous data. Using the “hybrid” method proposed by Crump, two strategies of BMA, including both “maximum likelihood estimation based” and “Markov Chain Monte Carlo based” methods, are first applied as a demonstration to calculate model averaged BMD estimates from real continuous dose‐response data. The outcomes from the example data sets examined suggest that the BMA BMD estimates have higher reliability than the estimates from the individual models with highest posterior weight in terms of higher BMDL and smaller 90th percentile intervals. In addition, a simulation study is performed to evaluate the accuracy of the BMA BMD estimator. The results from the simulation study recommend that the BMA BMD estimates have smaller bias than the BMDs selected using other criteria. To further validate the BMA method, some technical issues, including the selection of models and the use of bootstrap methods for BMDL derivation, need further investigation over a more extensive, representative set of dose‐response data.     

Relation Between Benchmark Dose and No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level in Clinical Research: Effects of Daily Alcohol Intake on Blood Pressure in Japanese Salesmen

The benchmark dose (BMD) is defined as the dose that corresponds to a specific change in an adverse response compared to the response in unexposed subjects, and the lower 95% confidence limit is termed the benchmark dose level (BMDL). In this study, the threshold of daily ethanol intake affecting blood pressure was calculated by both the BMD approach and multiple logistic regression analysis to clarify the relation between the BMDL and no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL). Systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP) and daily ethanol intake were explored in 1,100 Japanese salesmen. The SBP and DBP were positively related to daily ethanol intake (p < 0.001) when adjusting for possible confounders such as age, body mass index, and smoking status. The adjusted risk for hypertension (SBP >or= 140 mmHg or DBP >or= 90 mmHg) increased significantly when daily ethanol intake exceeded 60 g/day, and the categorical dose of interest was 60.1-90 g/day. The BMDL and BMD of ethanol intake for increased SBP and DBP were estimated to be approximately 60 and 75 g/day, respectively. These findings suggest that the BMDL and BMD correspond to the NOAEL and lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, respectively, if the sample number of clinical data is large enough to confirm the dose-response association.     

Nonparametric Bayesian Methods for Benchmark Dose Estimation

The article proposes and investigates the performance of two Bayesian nonparametric estimation procedures in the context of benchmark dose estimation in toxicological animal experiments. The methodology is illustrated using several existing animal dose‐response data sets and is compared with traditional parametric methods available in standard benchmark dose estimation software (BMDS), as well as with a published model‐averaging approach and a frequentist nonparametric approach. These comparisons together with simulation studies suggest that the nonparametric methods provide a lot of flexibility in terms of model fit and can be a very useful tool in benchmark dose estimation studies, especially when standard parametric models fail to fit to the data adequately.     

Comparison of the EU T25 Single Point Estimate Method with Benchmark Dose Response Modeling for Estimating Potency of Carcinogens

The T25 single-point estimate method of evaluating the carcinogenic potency of a chemical, which is currently used by the European Union (EU) and is denoted the EU approach, is based on the selection of a single dose in a chronic bioassay with an incidence rate that is significantly higher than the background rate. The T25 is determined from that single point by a linear extrapolation or interpolation to the chronic dose (in mg/kg/day), at which a 25% increase in the incidence of the specified tumor type is expected, corrected for the background rate. Another method used to obtain a carcinogenic potency value based on a 25% increase in incidence above the background rate is the estimation of a T25 derived from a benchmark dose (BMD) response model fit to the chronic bioassay data for the specified tumor type. A comparison was made between these two methods using 276 chronic bioassays conducted by the National Toxicology Program. In each of the 2-year bioassays, a tumor type was selected based on statistical and biological significance, and both EU T25 and BMD T25 estimates were determined for that end point. In addition, simulations were done using underlying cumulative probability distributions to examine the effect of dose spacing, the number of animals per dose group, the possibility of a dose threshold, and variation in the background incidence rates on the EU T25 and BMD estimates. The simulations showed that in the majority of cases the EU T25 method underestimated the true T25 dose and overestimated the carcinogenic potency. The BMD estimate is generally less biased and has less variation about the true T25 value than the EU estimate.     

Potential Uncertainty Reduction in Model‐Averaged Benchmark Dose Estimates Informed by an Additional Dose Study

A methodology is presented for assessing the information value of an additional dosage experiment in existing bioassay studies. The analysis demonstrates the potential reduction in the uncertainty of toxicity metrics derived from expanded studies, providing insights for future studies. Bayesian methods are used to fit alternative dose‐response models using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation for parameter estimation and Bayesian model averaging (BMA) is used to compare and combine the alternative models. BMA predictions for benchmark dose (BMD) are developed, with uncertainty in these predictions used to derive the lower bound BMDL. The MCMC and BMA results provide a basis for a subsequent Monte Carlo analysis that backcasts the dosage where an additional test group would have been most beneficial in reducing the uncertainty in the BMD prediction, along with the magnitude of the expected uncertainty reduction. Uncertainty reductions are measured in terms of reduced interval widths of predicted BMD values and increases in BMDL values that occur as a result of this reduced uncertainty. The methodology is illustrated using two existing data sets for TCDD carcinogenicity, fitted with two alternative dose‐response models (logistic and quantal‐linear). The example shows that an additional dose at a relatively high value would have been most effective for reducing the uncertainty in BMA BMD estimates, with predicted reductions in the widths of uncertainty intervals of approximately 30%, and expected increases in BMDL values of 5–10%. The results demonstrate that dose selection for studies that subsequently inform dose‐response models can benefit from consideration of how these models will be fit, combined, and interpreted.     

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.     

Experimental Design of Bioassays for Screening and Low Dose Extrapolation

Relatively high doses of chemicals generally are employed in animal bioassays to detect potential carcinogens with relatively small numbers of animals. The problem investigated here is the development of experimental designs which are effective for high to low dose extrapolation for tumor incidence as well as for screening (detecting) carcinogens. Several experimental designs are compared over a wide range of different dose response curves. Linear extrapolation is used below the experimental data range to establish an upper bound on carcinogenic risk at low doses. The goal is to find experimental designs which minimize the upper bound on low dose risk estimates (i.e., maximize the allowable dose for a given level of risk). The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) is employed for screening purposes. Among the designs investigated, experiments with doses at the MTD, 1/2 MTD, 1/4 MTD, and controls generally provide relatively good data for low dose extrapolation with relatively good power for detecting carcinogens. For this design, equal numbers of animals per dose level perform as well as unequal allocations.     

An Approach for Modeling Noncancer Dose Responses with an Emphasis on Uncertainty

This paper presents an approach for characterizing the probability of adverse effects occurring in a population exposed to dose rates in excess of the Reference Dose (RfD). The approach uses a linear threshold (hockey stick) model of response and is based on the current system of uncertainty factors used in setting RfDs. The approach requires generally available toxicological estimates such as No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Levels (NOAELs) or Benchmark Doses and doses at which adverse effects are observed in 50% of the test animals (ED₅₀s). In this approach, Monte Carlo analysis is used to characterize the uncertainty in the dose response slope based on the range and magnitude of the key sources of uncertainty in setting protective doses. The method does not require information on the shape of the dose response curve for specific chemicals, but is amenable to the inclusion of such data. The approach is applied to four compounds to produce estimates of response rates for dose rates greater than the RfD     

Models of Neurotoxicity: Extrapolation of Benchmark Doses in Vitro

In risk assessment, no observed exposure level (NOAEL) and benchmark dose (BMD) are usually derived either from epidemiological studies in humans or from animal experiments. In many in vitro studies, concentration-effect/response curves have been analyzed using different mathematical models finalized to the identification of EC50. In the present article, we propose a model to fit dose-response curves in vitro. The BMD approach has been used to compare the cell viability (MIT assay) of different rat (C6 and PC12, glial and neuronal, respectively) and human cell lines (D384 and SK-N-MC, glial and neuronal, respectively) after 24-hour exposure to the following neurotoxic substances: manganese chloride (MnCl2), methyl-mercury (Me-Hg), and the enantiomers of styrene oxide (SO). For all rat and human cell lines, the potency of the examined compounds was: MnCl2 < S-SO < R-SO < Me-Hg. A preliminary comparison with in vivo toxicity data for these substances gave rise to consistent results. Whereas a reasonable agreement between in vitro and in vivo data has been found for Mn and styrene oxide, a wide scatter of LOAEL has been reported for Me-Hg and these appear to be either much higher or lower than the BMD for the MIT assay we observed in vitro.     

Using Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling to Address Nonlinear Kinetics and Changes in Rodent Physiology and Metabolism Due to Aging and Adaptation in Deriving Reference Values for Propylene Glycol Methyl Ether and Propylene Glycol Methyl Ether Acetate

Reference values, including an oral reference dose (RfD) and an inhalation reference concentration (RfC), were derived for propylene glycol methyl ether (PGME), and an oral RfD was derived for its acetate (PGMEA). These values were based on transient sedation observed in F344 rats and B6C3F1 mice during a two‐year inhalation study. The dose‐response relationship for sedation was characterized using internal dose measures as predicted by a physiologically‐based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model for PGME and its acetate. PBPK modeling was used to account for changes in rodent physiology and metabolism due to aging and adaptation, based on data collected during Weeks 1, 2, 26, 52, and 78 of a chronic inhalation study. The peak concentration of PGME in richly perfused tissues (i.e., brain) was selected as the most appropriate internal dose measure based on a consideration of the mode of action for sedation and similarities in tissue partitioning between brain and other richly perfused tissues. Internal doses (peak tissue concentrations of PGME) were designated as either no‐observed‐adverse‐effect levels (NOAELs) or lowest‐observed‐adverse‐effect levels (LOAELs) based on the presence or the absence of sedation at each time point, species, and sex in the two‐year study. Distributions of the NOAEL and LOAEL values expressed in terms of internal dose were characterized using an arithmetic mean and standard deviation, with the mean internal NOAEL serving as the basis for the reference values, which was then divided by appropriate uncertainty factors. Where data were permitting, chemical‐specific adjustment factors were derived to replace default uncertainty factor values of 10. Nonlinear kinetics, which was predicted by the model in all species at PGME concentrations exceeding 100 ppm, complicate interspecies, and low‐dose extrapolations. To address this complication, reference values were derived using two approaches that differ with respect to the order in which these extrapolations were performed: (1) default approach of interspecies extrapolation to determine the human equivalent concentration (PBPK modeling) followed by uncertainty factor application, and (2) uncertainty factor application followed by interspecies extrapolation (PBPK modeling). The resulting reference values for these two approaches are substantially different, with values from the latter approach being seven‐fold higher than those from the former approach. Such a striking difference between the two approaches reveals an underlying issue that has received little attention in the literature regarding the application of uncertainty factors and interspecies extrapolations to compounds where saturable kinetics occur in the range of the NOAEL. Until such discussions have taken place, reference values based on the former approach are recommended for risk assessments involving human exposures to PGME and PGMEA.     

A Simulation Study of the Influence of Study Design on the Estimation of Benchmark Doses for Developmental Toxicity1

The benchmark dose (BMD)⁴ approach is emerging as replacement to determination of the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) in noncancer risk assessment. This possibility raises the issue as to whether current study designs for endpoints such as developmental toxicity, optimized for detecting pair wise comparisons, could be improved for the purpose of calculating BMDs. In this paper, we examine various aspects of study design (number of dose groups, dose spacing, dose placement, and sample size per dose group) on BMDs for two endpoints of developmental toxicity (the incidence of abnormalities and of reduced fetal weight). Design performance was judged by the mean-squared error (reflective of the variance and bias) of the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) from the log-logistic model of the 5% added risk level (the likely target risk for a benchmark calculation), as well as by the length of its 95% confidence interval (the lower value of which is the BMD). We found that of the designs evaluated, the best results were obtained when two dose levels had response rates above the background level, one of which was near the ED₀₅, were present. This situation is more likely to occur with more, rather than fewer dose levels per experiment. In this instance, there was virtually no advantage in increasing the sample size from 10 to 20 litters per dose group. If neither of the two dose groups with response rates above the background level was near the ED₀₅, satisfactory results were also obtained, but the BMDs tended to be more conservative (i.e., lower). If only one dose level with a response rate above the background level was present, and it was near the ED₀₅, reasonable results for the MLE and BMD were obtained, but here we observed benefits of larger dose group sizes. The poorest results were obtained when only a single group with an elevated response rate was present, and the response rate was much greater than the ED₀₅. The results indicate that while the benchmark dose approach is readily applicable to the standard study designs and generally observed dose-responses in developmental assays, some minor design modifications would increase the accuracy and precision of the BMD.     

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.     

Quantitative Risk Assessment: Developing a Bayesian Approach to Dichotomous Dose–Response Uncertainty

Model averaging for dichotomous dose–response estimation is preferred to estimate the benchmark dose (BMD) from a single model, but challenges remain regarding implementing these methods for general analyses before model averaging is feasible to use in many risk assessment applications, and there is little work on Bayesian methods that include informative prior information for both the models and the parameters of the constituent models. This article introduces a novel approach that addresses many of the challenges seen while providing a fully Bayesian framework. Furthermore, in contrast to methods that use Monte Carlo Markov Chain, we approximate the posterior density using maximum a posteriori estimation. The approximation allows for an accurate and reproducible estimate while maintaining the speed of maximum likelihood, which is crucial in many applications such as processing massive high throughput data sets. We assess this method by applying it to empirical laboratory dose–response data and measuring the coverage of confidence limits for the BMD. We compare the coverage of this method to that of other approaches using the same set of models. Through the simulation study, the method is shown to be markedly superior to the traditional approach of selecting a single preferred model (e.g., from the U.S. EPA BMD software) for the analysis of dichotomous data and is comparable or superior to the other approaches.     

An International Pooled Analysis for Obtaining a Benchmark Dose for Environmental Lead Exposure in Children

Lead is a recognized neurotoxicant, but estimating effects at the lowest measurable levels is difficult. An international pooled analysis of data from seven cohort studies reported an inverse and supra‐linear relationship between blood lead concentrations and IQ scores in children. The lack of a clear threshold presents a challenge to the identification of an acceptable level of exposure. The benchmark dose (BMD) is defined as the dose that leads to a specific known loss. As an alternative to elusive thresholds, the BMD is being used increasingly by regulatory authorities. Using the pooled data, this article presents BMD results and applies different statistical techniques in the analysis of multistudy data. The calculations showed only a limited variation between studies in the steepness of the dose‐response functions. BMD results were quite robust to modeling assumptions with the best fitting models yielding lower confidence limits (BMDLs) of about 0.1–1.0 μ g/dL for the dose leading to a loss of one IQ point. We conclude that current allowable blood lead concentrations need to be lowered and further prevention efforts are needed to protect children from lead toxicity.