The Predictive Safety Testing Consortium's first regulatory submission to qualify kidney safety biomarkers revealed two deficiencies. To address the need for biomarkers that monitor recovery from agent-induced renal damage, we scored changes in the levels of urinary biomarkers in rats during recovery from renal injury induced by exposure to carbapenem A or gentamicin. All biomarkers responded to histologic tubular toxicities to varied degrees and with different kinetics. After a recovery period, all biomarkers returned to levels approaching those observed in uninjured animals. We next addressed the need for a serum biomarker that reflects general kidney function regardless of the exact site of renal injury. Our assay for serum cystatin C is more sensitive and specific than serum creatinine (SCr) or blood urea nitrogen (BUN) in monitoring generalized renal function after exposure of rats to eight nephrotoxicants and two hepatotoxicants. This sensitive serum biomarker will enable testing of renal function in animal studies that do not involve urine collection.

The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessment carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State, the United Kingdom, for the pesticide risk assessment for the triazole derivative metabolites are reported. The context of the peer review was that requested by the European Commission following the submission and evaluation of confirmatory data in relation to mammalian toxicology, metabolism and residue data. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of various uses for a number of triazole fungicides. Recommendations are proposed. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified.

No abstract

Novel urinary kidney safety biomarkers have been identified recently that may outperform or add value to the conventional renal function biomarkers, blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and serum creatinine (SCr). To assess the relative performance of the growing list of novel biomarkers, a comprehensive evaluation was conducted for 12 urinary biomarkers in 22 rat studies including 12 kidney toxicants and 10 compounds with toxicities observed in organs other than kidney. The kidney toxicity studies included kidney tubular toxicants and glomerular toxicants. The 12 urinary biomarkers evaluated included Kim-1, clusterin, osteopontin, osteoactivin, albumin, lipocalin-2, GST-α, β2-microglobulin, cystatin C, retinol binding protein 4, total protein, and N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for each biomarker and for BUN and SCr to compare the relative performance of the 12 biomarkers in individual animals against the microscopic histomorphologic changes observed in the kidney. Among the kidney toxicity biomarkers analyzed, Kim-1, clusterin, and albumin showed the highest overall performance for detecting drug-induced renal tubular injury in the rat in a sensitive and specific manner, whereas albumin showed the highest performance in detecting drug-induced glomerular injury. Although most of the evaluated kidney biomarkers were more sensitive in detecting kidney toxicity compared with BUN and SCr, all biomarkers demonstrated some lack of specificity, most notably NGAL and osteopontin, illustrating the need for caution when interpreting urinary biomarker increases in rat samples when organ toxicity is unknown.

According to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, EFSA has reviewed the maximum residue levels (MRLs) currently established at European level for the pesticide active substance quizalofop-Pethyl, quizalofop-P-tefuryl and propaquizafop. To assess the occurrence of quizalofop-P-ethyl, quizalofop-P-tefuryl and propaquizafop residues in plants, processed commodities, rotational crops and livestock, EFSA considered the conclusions derived in the framework of Directive 91/414/EEC as well as the European authorisations reported by Member States (including the supporting residues data). Based on the assessment of the available data, MRL proposals were derived and a consumer risk assessment was carried out. Although no apparent risk to consumers was identified, some information required by the regulatory framework was missing. Hence, the consumer risk assessment is considered indicative only and all MRL proposals derived by EFSA still require further consideration by risk managers.