1. |
|
|
2. |
|
|
3. |
|
|
4. |
|
|
5. |
- Martens, Marvin, et al.
(author)
-
ELIXIR and Toxicology : a community in development
- 2021
-
In: F1000 Research. - : F1000 Research Ltd. - 2046-1402. ; 10, s. 1129-1129
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Toxicology has been an active research field for many decades, with academic, industrial and government involvement. Modern omics and computational approaches are changing the field, from merely disease-specific observational models into target-specific predictive models. Traditionally, toxicology has strong links with other fields such as biology, chemistry, pharmacology and medicine. With the rise of synthetic and new engineered materials, alongside ongoing prioritisation needs in chemical risk assessment for existing chemicals, early predictive evaluations are becoming of utmost importance to both scientific and regulatory purposes. ELIXIR is an intergovernmental organisation that brings together life science resources from across Europe. To coordinate the linkage of various life science efforts around modern predictive toxicology, the establishment of a new ELIXIR Community is seen as instrumental. In the past few years, joint efforts, building on incidental overlap, have been piloted in the context of ELIXIR. For example, the EU-ToxRisk, diXa, HeCaToS, transQST, and the nanotoxicology community have worked with the ELIXIR TeSS, Bioschemas, and Compute Platforms and activities. In 2018, a core group of interested parties wrote a proposal, outlining a sketch of what this new ELIXIR Toxicology Community would look like. A recent workshop (held September 30th to October 1st, 2020) extended this into an ELIXIR Toxicology roadmap and a shortlist of limited investment-high gain collaborations to give body to this new community. This Whitepaper outlines the results of these efforts and defines our vision of the ELIXIR Toxicology Community and how it complements other ELIXIR activities.
|
|
6. |
- Buekers, J, et al.
(author)
-
Development of Policy Relevant Human Biomonitoring Indicators for Chemical Exposure in the European Population
- 2018
-
In: International journal of environmental research and public health. - : MDPI AG. - 1660-4601. ; 15:10
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The European Union’s 7th Environmental Action Programme (EAP) aims to assess and minimize environmental health risks from the use of hazardous chemicals by 2020. From this angle, policy questions like whether an implemented policy to reduce chemical exposure has had an effect over time, whether the health of people in specific regions or subpopulations is at risk, or whether the body burden of chemical substances (the internal exposure) varies with, for example, time, country, sex, age, or socio-economic status, need to be answered. Indicators can help to synthesize complex scientific information into a few key descriptors with the purpose of providing an answer to a non-expert audience. Human biomonitoring (HBM) indicators at the European Union (EU) level are unfortunately lacking. Within the Horizon2020 European Human Biomonitoring project HBM4EU, an approach to develop European HBM indicators was worked out. To learn from and ensure interoperability with other European indicators, 15 experts from the HBM4EU project (German Umweltbundesamt (UBA), Flemish research institute VITO, University of Antwerp, European Environment Agency (EEA)), and the World Health Organization (WHO), European Core Health Indicator initiative (ECHI), Eurostat, Swiss ETH Zurich and the Czech environmental institute CENIA, and contributed to a workshop, held in June 2017 at the EEA in Copenhagen. First, selection criteria were defined to evaluate when and if results of internal chemical exposure measured by HBM, need to be translated into a European HBM-based indicator. Two main aspects are the HBM indicator’s relevance for policy, society, health, and the quality of the biomarker data (availability, comparability, ease of interpretation). Secondly, an approach for the calculation of the indicators was designed. Two types of indicators were proposed: ‘sum indicators of internal exposure’ derived directly from HBM biomarker concentrations and ‘indicators for health risk’, comparing HBM concentrations to HBM health-based guidance values (HBM HBGVs). In the latter case, both the percentage of the studied population exceeding the HBM HBGVs (PE) and the extent of exceedance (EE), calculated as the population’s exposure level divided by the HBM HBGV, can be calculated. These indicators were applied to two examples of hazardous chemicals: bisphenol A (BPA) and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), which both have high policy and societal relevance and for which high quality published data were available (DEMOCOPHES, Swedish monitoring campaign). European HBM indicators help to summarize internal exposure to chemical substances among the European population and communicate to what degree environmental policies are successful in keeping internal exposures sufficiently low. The main aim of HBM indicators is to allow follow-up of chemical safety in Europe.
|
|
7. |
- Harousseau, JL, et al.
(author)
-
A randomized phase 3 study of tipifarnib compared with best supportive care, including hydroxyurea, in the treatment of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in patients 70 years or older
- 2009
-
In: Blood. - : American Society of Hematology. - 1528-0020 .- 0006-4971. ; 114:6, s. 1166-1173
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This phase 3, multicenter, open-label study evaluated the efficacy and safety of tipifarnib compared with best supportive care (BSC), including hydroxyurea, as first-line therapy in elderly patients (≥70 years) with newly diagnosed, de novo, or secondary acute myeloid leukemia. A total of 457 patients were enrolled with 24% 80 years of age or older. Tipifarnib 600 mg orally twice a day was administered for the first 21 consecutive days, in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival. The median survival was 107 days for the tipifarnib arm and 109 days for the BSC arm. The hazard ratio (tipifarnib vs BSC) for overall survival was 1.02 (P value by stratified log-rank test, .843). The complete response rate for tipifarnib in this study (8%) was lower than that observed previously, but with a similar median duration of 8 months. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events were cytopenias in both arms, slightly more infections (39% vs 33%), and febrile neutropenia (16% vs 10%) seen in the tipifarnib arm. The results of this randomized study showed that tipifarnib treatment did not result in an increased survival compared with BSC, including hydroxyurea. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00093990.
|
|
8. |
- Heinemeyer, Gerhard, et al.
(author)
-
Towards further harmonization of a glossary for exposure science-an ISES Europe statement
- 2022
-
In: Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1559-0631 .- 1559-064X. ; 32:4, s. 526-529
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The use of aligned exposure science terminology is crucial for ease of comparison and appropriate interpretation of exposure information, regulatory reports, and scientific publications. Sometimes the use of different terminology in different contexts and areas of exposure science results in diverging interpretations of the same descriptor. During the development of the European strategy for exposure science, the need was identified to agree on a defined terminology requiring an evaluation of the commonly used terms, synonymous uses, and their relationships between each other. This paper presents the first steps in compiling the most important exposure-related terms from existing guidance documents and publications for exposure and risk assessment and adapting them to be useful for different contexts and areas. This initial step is intended to trigger discussion on terminology among exposure scientists around the globe and across regulatory and methodological silos. The glossary itself is intended as a living document to be hosted by the International Society for Exposure Science.
|
|
9. |
|
|