Susceptibility Based Upon Chemical Interaction with Disease Processes: Potential Implications for Risk Assessment

Application of probabilistic methods to address variability and uncertainty in estimating risks for non-cancer health effects

Human health risk assessment currently uses the reference dose or reference concentration (RfD, RfC) approach to describe the level of exposure to chemical hazards without appreciable risk for non-cancer health effects in people. However, this "bright line" approach assumes that there is minimal risk below the RfD/RfC with some undefined level of increased risk at exposures above the RfD/RfC and has limited utility for decision-making. Rather than this dichotomous approach, non-cancer risk assessment can benefit from incorporating probabilistic methods to estimate the amount of risk across a wide range of exposures and define a risk-specific dose. We identify and review existing approaches for conducting probabilistic non-cancer risk assessments. Using perchloroethylene (PCE), a priority chemical for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Toxic Substances Control Act, we calculate risk-specific doses for the effects on cognitive deficits using probabilistic risk assessment approaches. Our probabilistic risk assessment shows that chronic exposure to 0.004 ppm PCE is associated with approximately 1-in-1,000 risk for a 5% reduced performance on the Wechsler Memory Scale Visual Reproduction subtest with 95% confidence. This exposure level associated with a 1-in-1000 risk for non-cancer neurocognitive deficits is lower than the current RfC for PCE of 0.0059 ppm, which is based on standard point of departure and uncertainty factor approaches for the same neurotoxic effects in occupationally exposed adults. We found that the population-level risk of cognitive deficit (indicating central nervous system dysfunction) is estimated to be greater than the cancer risk level of 1-in-100,000 at a similar chronic exposure level. The extension of toxicological endpoints to more clinically relevant endpoints, along with consideration of magnitude and severity of effect, will help in the selection of acceptable risk targets for non-cancer effects. We find that probabilistic approaches can 1) provide greater context to existing RfDs and RfCs by describing the probability of effect across a range of exposure levels including the RfD/RfC in a diverse population for a given magnitude of effect and confidence level, 2) relate effects of chemical exposures to clinical disease risk so that the resulting risk assessments can better inform decision-makers and benefit-cost analysis, and 3) better reflect the underlying biology and uncertainties of population risks.

Current practice and recommendations for advancing how human variability and susceptibility are considered in chemical risk assessment

A key element of risk assessment is accounting for the full range of variability in response to environmental exposures. Default dose-response methods typically assume a 10-fold difference in response to chemical exposures between average (healthy) and susceptible humans, despite evidence of wider variability. Experts and authoritative bodies support using advanced techniques to better account for human variability due to factors such as in utero or early life exposure and exposure to multiple environmental, social, and economic stressors.This review describes: 1) sources of human variability and susceptibility in dose-response assessment, 2) existing US frameworks for addressing response variability in risk assessment; 3) key scientific inadequacies necessitating updated methods; 4) improved approaches and opportunities for better use of science; and 5) specific and quantitative recommendations to address evidence and policy needs.Current default adjustment factors do not sufficiently capture human variability in dose-response and thus are inadequate to protect the entire population. Susceptible groups are not appropriately protected under current regulatory guidelines. Emerging tools and data sources that better account for human variability and susceptibility include probabilistic methods, genetically diverse in vivo and in vitro models, and the use of human data to capture underlying risk and/or assess combined effects from chemical and non-chemical stressors.We recommend using updated methods and data to improve consideration of human variability and susceptibility in risk assessment, including the use of increased default human variability factors and separate adjustment factors for capturing age/life stage of development and exposure to multiple chemical and non-chemical stressors. Updated methods would result in greater transparency and protection for susceptible groups, including children, infants, people who are pregnant or nursing, people with disabilities, and those burdened by additional environmental exposures and/or social factors such as poverty and racism.

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Implementation: How the Amended Law Has Failed to Protect Vulnerable Populations from Toxic Chemicals in the United States

Exposures to industrial chemicals are widespread and can increase the risk of adverse health effects such as cancer, developmental disorders, respiratory effects, diabetes, and reproductive problems. The amended Toxic Substances Control Act (amended TSCA) requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate risks of chemicals in commerce, account for risk to potentially exposed and susceptible populations, and mitigate risks for chemicals determined to pose an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. This analysis compares EPA's first 10 chemical risk evaluations under amended TSCA to best scientific practices for conducting risk assessments. We find EPA's risk evaluations underestimated human health risks of chemical exposures by excluding conditions of use and exposure pathways; not considering aggregate exposure and cumulative risk; not identifying all potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, and not quantifying differences in risk for susceptible groups; not addressing data gaps; and using flawed systematic review approaches to identify and evaluate the relevant evidence. We present specific recommendations for improving the implementation of amended TSCA using the best available science to ensure equitable, socially just safeguards to public health. Failing to remedy these shortcomings will result in continued systematic underestimation of risk for all chemicals evaluated under amended TSCA.

The Microbiome and Sustainable Healthcare

Increasing prevalences, morbidity, premature mortality and medical needs associated with non-communicable diseases and conditions (NCDs) have reached epidemic proportions and placed a major drain on healthcare systems and global economies. Added to this are the challenges presented by overuse of antibiotics and increased antibiotic resistance. Solutions are needed that can address the challenges of NCDs and increasing antibiotic resistance, maximize preventative measures, and balance healthcare needs with available services and economic realities. Microbiome management including microbiota seeding, feeding, and rebiosis appears likely to be a core component of a path toward sustainable healthcare. Recent findings indicate that: (1) humans are mostly microbial (in terms of numbers of cells and genes); (2) immune dysfunction and misregulated inflammation are pivotal in the majority of NCDs; (3) microbiome status affects early immune education and risk of NCDs, and (4) microbiome status affects the risk of certain infections. Management of the microbiome to reduce later-life health risk and/or to treat emerging NCDs, to spare antibiotic use and to reduce the risk of recurrent infections may provide a more effective healthcare strategy across the life course particularly when a personalized medicine approach is considered. This review will examine the potential for microbiome management to contribute to sustainable healthcare.